Atlas of Interventional Orthopedics

Procedures: Essential Guide for

Fluoroscopy and Ultrasound Guided
Procedures - eBook PDF
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebooksecure.com/download/atlas-of-interventional-orthopedics-procedures-es
sential-guide-for-fluoroscopy-and-ultrasound-guided-procedures-ebook-pdf/
Any screen.
Any time.
Anywhere.
Activate the eBook version
of this title at no additional charge.

Elsevier eBooks for Practicing Clinicians gives you the power to browse and search

Unlock your eBook today.

1. Visit expertconsult.inkling.com/redeem
2. Scratch box below to reveal your code
3. Type code into “Enter Code” box
4. Click “Redeem”
5. Log in or Sign up
6. Go to “My Library”

It’s that easy!

Place Peel Off
Sticker Here

For technical assistance:

email expertconsult.help@elsevier.com
call 1-800-401-9962 (inside the US)
call +1-314-447-8300 (outside the US)
Use of the current edition of the electronic version of this book (eBook) is subject to the terms of the nontransferable, limited license granted on
expertconsult.inkling.com. Access to the eBook is limited to the first individual who redeems the PIN, located on the inside cover of this book,
at expertconsult.inkling.com and may not be transferred to another party by resale, lending, or other means.
2020_PC
Conf idence
is ClinicalKey
Evidence-based answers, continually updated

A subscription to ClinicalKey draws content from

countless procedural videos, peer-reviewed journals,
patient education materials, and books authored by
the most respected names in medicine.

Your patients trust you. You can trust ClinicalKey.

Equip yourself with trusted, current content that provides you with
the clinical knowledge to improve patient outcomes.

Get to know ClinicalKey at store.clinicalkey.com.

2019v1.0
 Atlas of Interventional
Orthopedics Procedures

i
This page intentionally left blank

     
Atlas of Interventional
Orthopedics Procedures
Essential Guide for Fluoroscopy and
Ultrasound-Guided Procedures

Chris J. Williams, MD
Adjunct Professor
Emory Rehabilitation Department
Emory University, Atlanta
Georgia
USA
CEO/Owner
Interventional Orthopedics of Atlanta, Atlanta
Georgia
USA

Walter I. Sussman, DO
Assistant Clinical Professor
Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
Tufts University, Boston
Massachusetts
USA

John Pitts, MD
Fellowship Director
Interventional Orthopedics
Centeno- Schultz Clinic, Broomfield
Colorado
USA

London New York Oxford Philadelphia St Louis Sydney 2023

© 2023, Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or me-
chanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permis-
sion in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s
permissions policies, and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the
Copyright Licensing Agency can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions

This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other
than as may be noted herein).

Notices

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and
using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. Because of rapid advances
in the medical sciences, in particular, independent verification of diagnoses and drug dosages should be
made. To the fullest extent of the law, no responsibility is assumed by Elsevier, authors, editors, or contribu-
tors for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or
otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the
material herein.

ISBN: 978-0-323-75514-6

Content Strategist: Humayra Khan

Content Development Specialist: Kim Benson/Grace Onderlinde
Project Manager: Andrew Riley
Design: Patrick Ferguson
Illustration Manager: Muthukumaran Thangaraj
Illustrator: Dr Patrick Nguyen
Marketing Manager: Kate Bresnahan

Printed in the USA

Last digit is the print number: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Contents

Foreword vii 9 Therapeutic Dextrose Injection: Prolotherapy,

Perineural Injection Therapy, and
Preface viii
Hydrodissection, 102
Editor Biographies x Kenneth D. Reeves, Stanley K.H. Lam and David Rabago

Contributors xii
10 Sclerosing Agents, 118
Acknowledgments xx Colton L. Wood, David J. Berkoff, and Justin R. Lockrem

Section I Introduction 11 Toxins for Orthopedics, 124

1 Introduction to Interventional Orthopedics
and Review of the Pathophysiology of
Orthopedic Conditions, 1
Walter I. Sussman, John Pitts, and Chris Williams
2 Ultrasound Basics, 14
Matthew Sherrier, Allison N. Schroeder, Kentaro Onishi, and
Daniel Lueders
3 Principles of Fluoroscopy Imaging in
Spine and Musculoskeletal Interventional
Orthopedics, 31
Katarzyna Iwan, Rahul Naren Desai,
and John J. Wolfson
Section II Injectates
Zach Bohart, Walter I. Sussman, Jacob Sellon,
and Natalie Sajkowicz
Section III Atlas
12 Cervical Injection Techniques, 134
Marko Bodor, Stephen Derrington, John Pitts, Jason Markle,
Sairam Atluri, Navneet Boddu, and Vivek Manocha
13 Thoracic Injection Techniques, 166
Marko Bodor, Stephen Derrington, John Pitts, Jason Markle,
and Orlando Landrum
14 Lumbar Injection Techniques, 186
Di Cui, Lisa Foster, Brian Hart Keogh Jr., Jason Markle,
Hassan Monfared, Jaymin Patel, Shounuck I. Patel, John
Pitts, and Diya Sandhu

4 Principles of Injection Therapy, 41 15 Sacrococcygeal Injection Techniques, 224

Lee Kneer, Robert Bowers, and Cleo D. Stafford II
5 Autologous Tissue Harvesting Techniques:
Bone Marrow Aspirate and Adipose Tissue,
50
Gerard Malanga, Jay E. Bowen, and
Selorm L. Takyi
6 Autologous Tissue Harvesting Techniques:
Platelet-Rich Plasma, 62
Peter A. Everts
7 Autologous Orthobiologics, 70
Prathap Jayaram, Peter Chia Yeh, Max Epstein, and Shiv J. Patel
8 Allograft Tissues, 89
Alberto J. Panero, Alan M. Hirahara, Luga Podesta, Amir A.
Jamali, Wyatt Andersen, and Alyssa A. Smith
Joanne Borg-Stein, Catherine Mills, Carolyn Black, Oluseun
Olufade, and Giorgio A. Negron
16 Shoulder Injection Techniques, 242
Jason Markle and Cleo D. Stafford II
17 Elbow Injection Techniques, 272
Chris Williams, Walter I. Sussman, and John Pitts
18 Wrist Injection Techniques, 290
Kevin Conley, Yoditi Tefera, Michael Erickson, Adam M.
Pourcho, Phillip Henning, and Oluseun Olufade
19 Hand Injection Techniques, 313
Yodit Tefera, Kevin Conley, Michael Erickson, Adam M.
Pourcho, Phillip Henning, and Oluseun Olufade

v
vi Contents
20 Hip Injection Techniques, 323
Ken Mautner, John Pitts, Oluseun Olufade, Heather Lynn
Saffel, and Adam Street
21 Knee Injection Techniques, 366
Josh Hackel, Todd Hayano, John Pitts,
and Mairin A. Jerome
22 Ankle Region Injection Techniques, 428
Allison C. Bean, Allison N. Schroeder, Matthew Sherrier,
Arthur Jason de Luigi, and Kentaro Onishi
23 Foot Injection Techniques, 465
Douglas Hoffman, Jacob Jones, Pierre D’hemecourt, John
Pitts, and Arthur Jason De Luigi
Section IV Advanced
24 Calcific Tendonitis Barbotage/Lavage, 489
Jason Ian Blaichman and Kenneth S. Lee
25 High-Volume Ultrasound-Guided Capsular
Distention for Adhesive Capsulitis, 496
Alyssa Neph Speciale and Brian Davis
26 Ultrasound-Guided Needle Tenotomy
and Ultrasound-Guided Tenotomy and
Debridement With Tenex Health TX System,
502
Ryan C. Kruse and Mederic M. Hall
27 High-Volume Image-Guided Injections, 506
Maria-Cristina Zielinski, Nicola Maffulli, Otto Chan, and
Romain Haym
28 Ultrasound-Guided Release of Trigger Finger
and de Quervain Tenosynovitis, 514
Ricardo E. Colberg and Javier A. Jurado
29 Compartment Pressure Testing, 524
Jonathan T. Finnoff and Jacob Reisner
30 Ultrasound-Guided Anterior and Lateral
Compartment Fasciotomies for Chronic
Exertional Compartment Syndrome, 527
Jonathan T. Finnoff and Jacob Reisner
31 Principles of Perineural Injections, 531
Jeffrey A. Strakowski
32 Ultrasound-Guided Release of the Transverse
Carpal Ligament (Carpal Tunnel), 535
Adam M. Pourcho, Phillip Henning, and Jay Smith
33 Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Bone Spur
Excision and Cheilectomy, 544
Brian J. Shiple
34 Intraosseous Injections, 553
Steven Sampson, Hunter Vincent, and Sonali Lal
35 Advanced and Emerging Interventional
Techniques, 573
Nidal Elbaridi, Virlyn Bishop, Orlando Landrum, Marko
Bodor, and John Pitts
36 Needle Arthroscopy of the Knee, Shoulder,
and Hip, 594
Don Buford, Brice W. Blatz, and Nicola Hyde
Section V Postprocedure Considerations
37 Rehabilitation Principles for Interventional
Orthopedics and Orthobiologics, 599
Walter I. Sussman, Ken Mautner, and Abby Perone
38 Advanced Imaging in Interventional
Orthopedics, 612
Rahul Naren Desai and Katarzyna Iwan
Foreword
In the early 2000s, I was frustrated with interventional spine
care. We were performing imaging-guided corticosteroid
injections in the spine as well as radiofrequency ablation
and could help many patients, but these were often “Band-
aid” procedures. The same held true for the corticosteroid or
hyaluronic acid injections we could offer in peripheral joints
for osteoarthritis. Then a 2004 article was published show-
ing that a rabbit disc could be regenerated with an injection
of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and my mind exploded.
By 2005, we had begun an IRB-approved clinical trial using
cultured bone marrow MSCs in the intervertebral disc and
in various peripheral joints.
As we treated patients, we began to realize that what we
had learned in interventional spine was only a small part of
what was possible. For example, when tissue regeneration or
healing is possible, placing stem cells or platelets using ultra-
sound or fluoroscopy into specific damaged structures of the
musculoskeletal system is the goal. However, it soon became
clear that there were several limitations to the possibilities of
treating musculoskeletal injuries. For example, there were
no interventional spine courses or texts that discussed how
to inject a damaged knee anterior cruciate ligament (ACL),
shoulder labrum, or ankle ligament.
Additionally, the diagnostic and therapeutic approach to
these issues was entirely different than interventional spine
or orthopedic surgery. For example, interventional spine had
nothing to say about how to diagnose an ACL tear or which
tears would be appropriate for injection-based regenerative
medicine versus which ACL tears would be more appropri-
ate for traditional surgical reconstruction. While orthope-
dic surgery had a diagnostic approach, it was focused on a
binary decision, which is whether the damaged ACL should
be surgically removed and replaced or not.
Hence, it was clear based on the techniques required and
the different diagnostic and therapeutic approach that this was
a new medical specialty. Consequently, the concept of inter-
ventional orthopedics was born. Our clinic soon set up a fel-
lowship program to educate physicians as well as a non-profit
organization, the Interventional Orthopedics Foundation
(IOF). The primary goal of the IOF was to train physicians in
the United States and abroad with a background in muscu-
loskeletal care how to precisely inject structures under image
guidance with hands-on didactic sessions.
Looking back, I realize that this textbook is the culmi-
nation of both the problem of a limited set of treatment
options for musculoskeletal injuries and the dream of
bridging non-operative and operative orthopedic care with
precision-based interventional orthopedics. In other words,
a new interventional specialty needs standard texts that
describe the core procedures of that specialty. As radical as
this concept may seem, there is nothing new under the sun,
as the phrase goes. Medicine witnessed a similar specialty
emergence and transition in paradigm from a more surgical
model of cardiovascular care with the inception of interven-
tional cardiology in the late 1980s.
This textbook includes contributions from many of
the leaders in the field and several physicians that have
completed a fellowship in interventional orthopedics
and completed hundreds of didactic hours staying up to
date on emerging techniques and new research. This will-
ingness to be an innovator and disrupter in the field is
necessary for laying the foundation of stones to the met-
aphorical building, which will continue to cement the
legitimacy of this new medical specialty. I applaud and
100% support their efforts and happily pass the torch to
that next generation.
Christopher J. Centeno, MD
vii
Preface
Evolution
“The only constant in life is change”
—HERACLITUS
Musculoskeletal medicine is currently undergoing a para-
digm shift as alternatives to the traditional approaches of
care are being investigated vigorously by clinicians, scien-
tists, and patients. Conventional methods utilizing ana-
tomic landmarks for injection-based therapy have slowly
been replaced by precision-guided injections at the point-
of-care with high-definition ultrasound and fluoroscopy.
Long-established surgical procedures are being substituted
for minimally invasive techniques without having a negative
impact on patient outcomes.
All the procedure techniques described in this book are
image guided and we believe this to be the standard of care
at this time. Topics covered range from simple ultrasound-
guided joint injections, ligament and tendon injections,
perineural hydrodissection, fluoroscopically guided spine
procedures, and advanced microinvasive surgical proce-
dures—such as minimally invasive carpal tunnel release, A1
pulley/trigger finger release, intraosseous subchondral injec-
tions, calcific tendinopathy debridement, and the TENEX
procedure, to name a few.
Inception
“An Idea Is Like A Virus.”
—CHRISTOPHER NOLAN
The idea of this book came about as the authors were col-
lecting fluoroscopic and ultrasound-guided images of struc-
tures to perfect new injections techniques and for educating
doctors in training as well. We began collecting images
showing desired contrast flow patterns for structures such
as the ACL, PCL, spine ligaments, shoulder labrum, and
the hip ligamentum teres. During this process, we realized
that the majority of the techniques are not widely known
and only a handful of courses were offered to teach some of
the advanced techniques sporadically throughout the year.
The idea was then born to create an inclusive “atlas” incor-
porating both ultrasound- and fluoroscopy-guided muscu-
loskeletal procedures. Additionally, we wanted to include
an up-to-date resource on the current research and clinical
outcomes for orthobiologics given the overwhelming utili-
zation by many clinicians.
viii
With the advent and growing evidence for the use of
orthobiologics in orthopedic medicine, we realized these
substances could be injected in far more tissue areas than
the traditional steroids and local anesthetics. Because these
substances can be used to treat joints, bursae, fibrocartilage
structures, tendons, ligaments, muscles, bones, and peri-
neurally, they open up a whole new world of procedures
that were previously not described. Thus, the pioneers of
these treatments had to discover or invent new ways to
inject these substances safely and accurately into tissues one
would not typically treat with steroids only.
Blueprint
“Reading is the foundation of learning but an artist drew
up the blueprints.”
—GEORGE E. MILLER
“Of what use is a dream if not a blueprint for courageous
action.”
—ADAM WEST
We have been fortunate to have the opportunity to learn,
advance, and create many of these techniques we learned
from pioneers in this field, such as Chris Centeno, John
Schultz, and Kenneth Mautner to name a few.
This atlas provides a systematic approach for injecting
all the relevant structures that are commonly encountered
by non-operative sports medicine and interventional spine
physicians. The primary goal was to provide a single text
that an injectionist could utilize throughout the spectrum
of learning and practicing.
Section I of the book introduces the basics of image
guidance. Section II discusses the background and evidence
for the most commonly used injectates and orthobiologics
available at the time of writing this text. Section III is the
bulk of the text and describes ultrasound- and fluoroscopy-
guided procedures separated by body region. We provide
relevant anatomy and pathology and describe a step-by-step
guide for the injectionist to utilize as a supplemental learn-
ing tool for hands-on training. Section IV provides evidence
and descriptions for more advanced procedures that can
aide the more experienced interventional orthopedist and
should not be attempted until significant hands-on expe-
rience has been completed. Finally, Section V starts with
a chapter on postprocedure rehabilitation principles and
 Preface ix

current evidence. It concludes with a chapter on imaging, of this book experience the same. Our hope is to further
with visual examples demonstrating various degrees of tissue advance the field of interventional orthopedics and regen-
healing and regeneration. erative medicine and inspire the next generation to take the
Ideally, this text will serve as a fluid reference point as field further.
procedural techniques and injectate options continue to
evolve. Chris J. Williams, MD
Making this book has expanded our thought process and Walter I. Sussman, DO
clinical knowledge, and we sincerely hope that the readers John Pitts, MD
Editor Biographies
Chris J. Williams, MD
Christopher J. Williams, MD, was born and raised in Jack-
sonville, Florida. After high school, Dr. Williams entered the
US Air Force and worked as a public health technician in
England, Kuwait, and Mississippi. After serving 4 years in the
Air Force, he decided to get his undergraduate degree from
the University of North Florida, where he graduated summa
cum laude. He then opted to attend medical school at Emory
University where he also completed his residency training
in physical medicine and rehabilitation. During residency,
he was awarded the Resident of Year award for all 3 years of
his residency training and was Chief Resident his last year
of training. During residency, Dr. Williams spearheaded the
development of a musculoskeletal (MSK) ultrasound train-
ing curriculum and started a prosthetics and orthotics annual
symposium in collaboration with Georgia Tech.
Dr. Williams is board certified in physical medicine and
rehabilitation and completed fellowship training in inter-
ventional orthopedics and regenerative medicine for 1 year
at the Centeno-Schultz Clinic in Broomfield, CO. After
completing his training, he was an attending physician at
the Centeno-Schultz Clinic prior to opening his practice
in Atlanta, GA: Interventional Orthopedics of Atlanta. In
collaboration with Ken Mautner at Emory, they started a
joint non-accredited fellowship program in interventional
orthopedics and graduated their first fellow in July 2020.
Education is one of his passions, as he was raised by a
very hardworking single parent who was also a teacher and
instilled in him the principles of humility, hard work, and
dedication. Currently, Dr. Williams is an adjunct faculty
member at Emory University in the Department of Reha-
bilitation Medicine, providing didactics annually and also
allowing the residents to get hands-on training while rotat-
ing with him during their elective time. He is an instructor
and the educational committee co-chair for the Interven-
tional Orthobiologics Foundation, teaching several courses
annually. He also has lectured at the annual conference for
The Orthobiologics Institute (TOBI).
Dr. Williams has published over 10 peer-reviewed
research articles and book chapters on the topics of orthobi-
ologics and rehabilitation medicine. He achieved best-sell-
ing author status on Amazon for his book Exercise 2.0 and
was recognized by Emory University Alumni Association 40
Under 40 in 2019.
In his private practice at the Interventional Orthope-
dics of Atlanta, Dr. Williams specializes in the diagnosis
x
and treatment of musculoskeletal conditions in athletes,
weekend warriors, adolescents, the underserved, and the
elderly. He strives to provide exceptional care to everyone
he encounters.
Dr. Williams resides in Atlanta, Georgia with his wife
Layla, who is an ObGyn physician; two children, Kemet
and Egypt; and enjoys cooking, fitness activities, art, music,
and traveling.
Walter I. Sussman, DO
Dr. Walter I. Sussman is board certified in physical medi-
cine and rehabilitation with fellowship training in sports
medicine. He completed his undergraduate studies at Col-
gate University and medical school at the University of New
England College of Osteopathic Medicine in Biddeford,
Maine. During medical school, he completed a 1-year fel-
lowship in anatomy and osteopathic manipulative medi-
cine. He completed his residency in physical medicine and
rehabilitation at Emory University, where he served as chief
resident. He then pursued a fellowship in sports medicine
at Emory University, where he provided coverage for the
Atlanta Dream WNBA team, Georgia Tech athletics, and
Emory University athletics.
Dr. Sussman currently works in private practice outside
of Boston and serves as the Head Team Physician for the
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth and provides care
for many of the local high schools. He is a clinical Assistant
Professor at Tufts University and is engaged in resident edu-
cation. Dr. Sussman has published multiple book chapters
and peer-reviewed articles on regenerative medicine, chronic
tendon injuries, diagnostic musculoskeletal ultrasound, and
concussion management.
Dr. Sussman takes pride in promoting the patient experi-
ence and individualizing the treatment to fit each patient.
Dr. Sussman has a clinical interest in the use of ultrasound
to diagnose musculoskeletal injuries, in post-concussion
syndrome, in orthobiologics, and in minimally invasive
procedures. Dr. Sussman manages chronic musculoskel-
etal conditions, acute sports injuries, and sports-related
concussions.
John Pitts, MD
John Pitts, MD, was born and raised on the south side of
Chicago, IL. He received a BA in Mathematics/Economics
at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. Dr. Pitts received
his medical education at Vanderbilt School of Medicine

in Nashville and then completed a physical medicine and
rehabilitation residency back at Emory University. After res-
idency he completed a 1-year fellowship (non-accredited)
in regenerative medicine and interventional orthopedics at
the Centeno - Schultz Clinic, where he works currently and
is part of the Regenexx network of physicians. He serves
as the fellowship director and helps to train new Regenexx
physicians. He also regularly teaches procedural courses for
the Interventional Orthopedics foundations and has given
presentations at major conference for the American Acad-
emy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPMR),
The Orthobiologics Institute (TOBI), and the American
Association of Orthopedic Medicine (AAOM).
Dr. Pitts has been practicing regenerative Medicine and
interventional orthopedics exclusively since 2013. He diagno-
ses and treats patients with a variety of orthopedic and muscu-
loskeletal problems, including spine (cervical, thoracic, lumbar,
sacroiliac joints), temporomandibular joint, upper extremity
(shoulder, elbow, wrist, hand, fingers), lower extremity (hip,
knee, ankle, foot, toes), and problems relating to peripheral
Editor Biographies xi
nerves, joints, ligaments, tendons, bones, and muscle. He
regularly uses orthobiologics such as prolotherapy, neuroprolo-
therapy, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), platelet lysate, bone mar-
row concentrate, micronized adipose tissue graft, and amniotic
membrane. Additionally, he works in Grand Cayman Island
several times per year, where he is able to treat patients with cul-
tured expanded bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs).
He utilizes other devices to be used in interventional orthope-
dics and helps to pioneer and advance many of the procedures.
Dr. Pitts has co-authored several peer-reviewed articles
relating to regenerative treatments. He also authored a book
named Nutrition 2.0, Guide to Eating and Living to Achieve
a Higher Quality of Life Now and into Your Golden Years, and
gives this to all his patients.
Dr. Pitts resides in Denver, CO, with his wife, Ria, and
two young children, Malcolm and Camila. He enjoys work-
ing out, playing sports, snowboarding, scuba diving, being
outdoors, traveling, watching movies, and spending time
with his family.
Contributors

Associate Editors Jason Markle, DO

Interventional Orthopedic Physician
Marko Bodor, MD Orthopedics
Founder The Centeno-Schultz Clinic
Interventional Spine and Sports Medicine Broomfield, Colorado
Bodor Clinic USA
Napa, California
USA Ken Mautner, MD
Assistant Professor Assistant Professor
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
University of California Davis Emory University, Atlanta
Sacramento, California USA
USA
Assistant Professor
Neurological Surgery Contributors
University of California San Francisco Wyatt Andersen, BS, ATC
San Francisco, California Research Assistant
USA Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
Sacramento, California
Don Buford, MD, RMSK USA
Orthopedic Surgeon
Sports Medicine Sairam Atluri, MD
Texas Orthobiologic Institute Medical Director
Dallas, Texas ReGen
USA StemCures
Cincinnati, Ohio
Rahul Naren Desai, MD USA
CEO
Musculoskeletal Radiology Allison C. Bean, MD, PhD
Restore Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
PDX Spine & Sports Medicine University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
Beaverton, Oregon Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
USA USA
President
Interventional Orthopedic Foundation David J. Berkoff, MD
Broomfield, Colorado Professor
USA Orthopedics and Emergency Medicine
UNC Chapel Hill
Gerard Malanga, MD Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Partner USA
New Jersey Sports Medicine, LLC
Cedar Knolls, New Jersey Virlyn Bishop
USA Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
Clinical Professor Center for Spine Interventions
PM&R Acworth, GA
Rutgers Medical School USA
Newark, New Jersey
USA
xii
 Contributors xiii

Carolyn Black, MD, PhD Joanne Borg-Stein, MD

Resident Physician Associate Professor
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Harvard Medical School/Spaulding Rehabilitation Harvard Medical School
Hospital Boston, Massachusetts
Boston, Massachusetts USA
USA
Jay E. Bowen, DO
Jason Ian Blaichman, MDCM, FRCPC Medical Director
Adjunct Lecturer New Jersey Regenerative Institute, LLC
Department of Medical Imaging Cedar Knolls, New Jersey
University of Toronto USA Clinical Assistant Professor PM&R, Rutgers Medical
Toronto, Ontario School, New Jersey
Canada USA
Staff Radiologist
Department of Diagnostic Imaging Robert Bowers, DO, PhD
Scarborough Health Network Assistant Professor
Scarborough, Ontario Department of Orthopaedics
Canada Emory University School of Medicine
Atlanta, Georgia
Brice W. Blatz, MD, MS USA
Physician/Owner Assistant Professor
Sports and Regenerative Medicine Department of Rehabilitation Medicine
Pacific Regenerative and Interventional Sports Medicine Emory University School of Medicine
San Jose, California Atlanta, Georgia
USA USA

Navneet Boddu, MD Don Buford, MD, RMSK

Anesthesiologist Orthopedic Surgeon
Anesthesiology Sports Medicine
Anesthesia Service Medical Group Texas Orthobiologic Institute
San Diego, California Dallas, Texas
USA USA

Marko Bodor, MD Christopher J. Centeno, MD

Founder Research and Development
Interventional Spine and Sports Medicine Regenexx, LLC
Bodor Clinic Broomfield, Colorado
Napa, California USA
USA Centeno-Schultz Clinic
Assistant Professor Broomfield, Colorado
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation USA
University of California Davis
Sacramento, California Otto Chan, MBBS, FRCS, FRCR
USA Doctor
Assistant Professor Radiology Department
Neurological Surgery Whittington Hospital
University of California San Francisco London
San Francisco, California United Kingdom
USA
Ricardo E. Colberg, MD, RMSK
Zach Bohart, MD, MS Sports Medicine Physician
Associate Professor Andrews Sports Medicine & Orthopaedic Center
Tufts University School of Medicine Birmingham, Alabama
Boston, Massachusetts USA
USA
xiv Contributors

Kevin Conley, MD Pierre D’Hemecourt, MD

Fellow Physician
Swedish Sports & Spine Sports Medicine
Providence-Swedish Health Alliance Boston Children’s Hospital
Seattle, Washington Boston, Massachusetts
USA USA

Di Cui, MD Nidal Elbaridi, MD, PT

Assistant Professor Medical Director
Department of Rehabilitation Interventional Pain
Emory University Loop Medical Center
Atlanta, Georgia Chicago, Illinois
USA USA

Brian Davis, MD, FACSM Max H. Epstein, MD

Volunteer Clinical Professor Resident
Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
UC Davis Health System, Sacramento Baylor College of Medicine
California Houston, Texas
USA USA

Arthur Jason De Luigi, DO Michael Erickson, MD

Chair Swedish Sports Medicine Fellowship Director
Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Swedish Family Medicine Residency
Mayo Clinic Arizona Swedish Medical Center
Scottsdale, Arizona Seattle, Washington
USA USA
Professor of Rehabilitation Medicine Clinical Instructor
Rehabilitation Medicine Family Medicine
Georgetown University School of Medicine University of Washington
Washington, District of Columbia Seattle, Washington
USA USA
Associate Professor of Physical Medicine &
Rehabilitation Peter A. Everts, PhD, FRSM
Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Chief Scientific Officer EmCyte
Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine Program Director Gulf Coast Biologics
Scottsdale, Arizona Fort Myers. Florida
USA USA

Stephen Derrington, DO Jonathan T. Finnoff, DO, FAMSSM, FACSM

President and Medical Director Chief Medical Officer
Interventional Orthobiologics United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee,
Derrington Orthopedics – Interventional Sports and Spine Colorado Springs
Oceanside and Laguna Hills, California Colorado
USA USA
Professor
Rahul Naren Desai, MD Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
CEO Mayo Clinic College of Science and Medicine, Rochester
Musculoskeletal Radiology Minnesota
RestorePDX Spine & Sports Medicine USA
Beaverton, Oregon
USA Lisa Foster, MD
President Assistant Professor
Interventional Orthopedic Foundation Orthopedics
Broomfield, Colorado Emory University
USA Atlanta, Georgia
USA
 Contributors xv

Josh Hackel, MD, RMSK, CAQSM Katarzyna Iwan, MD

Fellowship Director USA/Andrews Research and Doctor
Education Foundation Pain Medicine
Primary Care Sports Medicine RestorePDX
Andrews Institute Beaverton, Oregon
Gulf Breeze, Florida USA
USA
Amir A. Jamali, MD
Mederic M. Hall, MD Medical Director
Associate Professor Orthopaedic Surgery
Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation Joint Preservation Institute
University of Iowa Walnut Creek, California
Iowa City, Iowa USA
USA
Prathap Jayaram, MD
Todd Hayano, DO Director of Regenerative Sports Medicine
Sports Medicine Fellow H. Ben Taub Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
Orthopedics & Sports Medicine Department of Orthopedic Surgery
Andrews Research & Education Foundation Baylor College of Medicine
Pensacola, Florida Houston, Texas
USA USA

Romain Haym, MSc (MSK Ultrasound), MSc Mairin A. Jerome, MD

(Adv. Physiotherapy), MHCPC, MCSP, MMACPC Fellow
Tendon Clinic—Senior Physiotherapist Interventional Orthopedics
Physiotherapy Centeno-Schultz Clinic
BMI The London Independent Hospital, London Broomfield, Colorado
United Kingdom USA
MSK Sonographer
Imaging Jacob Jones, MD
NHS Whittington Trust, London Physician
United Kingdom Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
Boston Children’s Hospital
Phillip Henning, DO Boston, Massachusetts
Medical Director of Sports Medicine USA
Rehabilitation and Performance Medicine
Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, Javier A. Jurado
Washington Medical Student
USA The University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine
Birmingham, Alabama
Alan M. Hirahara, MD, FRCSC USA
Owner
Private Practice Brian Hart Keogh Jr., MD
Sacramento, California East Carolina Pain Consultants
USA Interventional Pain Management
Vidant Medical Center
Douglas Hoffman, MD Greenville, North Carolina
Director of Musculoskeletal Ultrasound USA
Orthopedics and Radiology Affiliate Clinical Faculty
Essentia Health Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Duluth, Minnesota East Carolina University School of Medicine
USA Greenville, North Carolina
USA
Nicola Hyde
Sports Medicine and Family Medicine Physician
Seattle, Washington
USE
xvi Contributors

Lee Kneer, MD FAAPMR Justin R. Lockrem, MD

Assistant Professor Sports Medicine Fellow
Department of Orthopaedics Sports Medicine
Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta University of North Carolina
Georgia Chapel Hill, North Carolina
USA USA
Assistant Professor
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine Daniel Lueders, MD
Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta Assistant Professor
Georgia Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
USA University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Ryan C. Kruse, MD, CAQSM, RMSK USA
Assistant Professor
Orthopedics and Rehabilitation Nicola Maffulli, MD, MS, PhD, FRCP, FRCS(Orth)
University of Iowa Full Professor
Iowa City, Iowa Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry
USA University of Salerno
Salerno
Sonali Lal, MD Italy
Assistant Professor, Columbia University
Attending Physician, New York Gerard Malanga, MD
Presybyterian Hospital Partner
New Jersey Sports Medicine, LLC
Stanley K. H. Lam, MBBS, MScSEM, FHKIMM, RMSK, Cedar Knolls, New Jersey
CIPS, FIPP, POCUS USA
President Clinical Professor
Clinical Research PM&R
The Hong Kong Institute of Musculoskeletal Medicine Rutgers Medical School
Kowloon Bay Newark, New Jersey
Hong Kong USA
Clinical Associate Professor
Family Medicine Vivek Manocha, MD
The Chinese University of Hong Kong Medical Director
New Territory Pain Management
Hong Kong Midwest Spine Interventionalist
Clinical Assistant Professor Springboro, Ohio
Family Medicine USA
The University of Hong Kong Clinical Assistant Professor
Hong Kong Surgery
Wright State University
Orlando Landrum, MD, MBA Boonshoft School of Medicine
Physician CEO Dayton, Ohio
Pain & Regenerative Medicine USA
Cutting Edge Integrative Pain Centers
Elkhart, Indiana Jason Markle, DO
USA Interventional Orthopedic Physician
Orthopedics
Kenneth S. Lee, MD/MBA The Centeno-Schultz Clinic
Professor of Radiology Broomfield, Colorado
Section Chief of Musculoskeletal Imaging & Intervention USA
Fellowship Director
Musculoskeletal Imaging & Intervention Ken Mautner, MD
University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Assistant Professor
Health Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
Madison, Wisconsin Emory University, Atlanta
USA USA
 Contributors xvii

Catherine Mills, MD Shiv J. Patel, MD

Resident Physician Resident
Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Orthopaedic Surgery
Harvard Medical School/Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston
Boston, Massachusetts Texas
USA USA

Hassan Monfared, MD Shounuck I. Patel, DO

Assistant Professor Functional & Interventional Orthopedics
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Spine & Sports Physiatry
Emory University Regenexx Los Angeles
Atlanta, Georgia Los Angeles, California
USA USA
Residency Program Director Clinical Assistant Professor
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation College of Osteopathic Medicine of the Pacific
Emory University Western University
Atlanta, Georgia Pomona, California
USA USA
Clinical Assistant Professor
Giorgio A. Negron, MD College of Osteopathic Medicine
Resident Physician Touro University
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine Harlem, New York
Emory University USA
Atlanta, Georgia
USA Abby Perone, DC
Love Health, Owner
Oluseun Olufade, MD Movement Therapy & Functional Medicine
Assistant Professor St. Petersburg, Florida
Department of Orthopedics USA
Emory School of Medicine
Atlanta, Georgia John Pitts, MD
USA Fellowship Director
Assistant Professor Interventional Orthopedics
Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Centeno-Schultz Clinic
Emory School of Medicine Broomfield, Colorado
Atlanta, Georgia USA
USA
Luga Podesta, MD
Kentaro Onishi Director
Assistant Professor Regenerative Sports Medicine
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Bluetail Medical Group-Naples
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh Naples, Florida
Pennsylvania USA
USA Team Physician
Florida Everglades
Alberto J. Panero, DO Estero, Florida
http://sacsportsmed.com USA
Sports Medicine
SAC Regenerative Orthopedics Adam M. Pourcho, DO
Sacramento, California Instructor of Sports Medicine
USA Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Swedish Medical Group
Jaymin Patel, MD Seattle, Washington
Assistant Professor USA
Orthopaedics
Emory University
Atlanta, Georgia
USA
xviii Contributors

David Rabago, MD Diya Sandhu, MD

Associate Professor Assistant Professor
Department of Family Medicine Orthopaedics
University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Emory University
Health Atlanta, Georgia
Madison, Wisconsin USA
USA Assistant Professor
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Kenneth D. Reeves, BS, MD Emory University
Private Practice Atlanta, Georgia
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation and Pain USA
Management
Roeland Park, Kansas Allison N. Schroeder, MD
USA Resident Physician
Formerly Clinical Assistant/Associate Professor 1986–2015 Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
University of Kansas Medical Center Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Kansas City, Kansas USA
USA
Jacob Sellon, MD
Jacob Reisner, DO Associate Professor
Primary Care Sports Medicine Fellow Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation/Sports Medicine Center
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Mayo Clinic
Mayo Clinic Rochester, Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
USA
Matthew Sherrier, MD
Heather Lynn Saffel, MD, MS Resident Physician
Primary Care Sports Medicine Fellow Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Department of Orthopedics University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
Emory Sports Medicine Center Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Atlanta, Georgia USA
USA
Brian J. Shiple, DO, CAQSM, RMSK
Natalie Sajkowicz, MD President AAOM
Physician Board Certified Sports Medicine
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation The Center for Sports Medicine
Tufts Medical Center Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Boston, Massachusetts USA
USA
Alyssa A. Smith, BSc
Steven Sampson, DO Medical Assistant
Founder Joint Preservation Institute, Sacramento,
PM&R California
The Orthohealing Center USA
Los Angeles, California
USA Jay Smith, MD
Founder Professor
The Orthobiologic Institute Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
Los Angeles, California Mayo Clinic
USA Rochester, Minnesota
Clinical Instructor USA
Medicine
David Geffen School of Medicine UCLA Alyssa Neph Speciale, MD
Los Angeles, California Assistant Clinical Professor, PM&R Sports Medicine
USA UC Davis Health System
Sacramento, California
USA
 Contributors xix

Cleo D. Stafford II, MD, MS, CAQSM, RMSK, FAAPMR Hunter Vincent, DO
Assistant Professor Pain Fellow
Department of Orthopaedics Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta University of California: Los Angeles
Georgia Los Angeles, California
USA USA
Assistant Professor
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine Chris J. Williams, MD
Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta Adjunct Professor
Georgia Emory Rehabilitation Department
USA Emory University
Atlanta, Georgia
Jeffrey A. Strakowski, MD USA
Clinical Professor CEO/Owner
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Interventional Orthopedics of Atlanta
The Ohio State University Atlanta, Georgia
Columbus, Ohio USA
USA
Associate Director of Medical Education John J. Wolfson, RT (R), ASRT, (ARRT)
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Imaging and Interventional Coordinator
Riverside Methodist Hospital OR
Columbus, Ohio Injury Solutions
USA Greenwood Village, Colorado
Director of Musculoskeletal Research USA
The McConnell Spine, Sport and Joint Center Instructor
Columbus, Ohio Pain Imaging Education
USA Englewood, Colorado
USA
Adam Street, BS, DO
Fellow Colton L. Wood, MD
Emory Sports Medicine Center Primary Care Sports Medicine Fellow
Emory University Family Medicine
Atlanta, Georgia University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
USA Chapel Hill, North Carolina
USA
Walter I. Sussman, DO
Assistant Clinical Professor Peter Chia Yeh, MD
Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Chief Resident
Tufts University Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Boston, Massachusetts Baylor College of Medicine
USA Houston, Texas
USA
Selorm L. Takyi, MD
Regenerative Orthopedics and Musculoskeletal Maria-Cristina Zielinski, MD, PGDip, PGCert, AECC
Medicine Physician Centre for Sports and Exercise Medicine
Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Barts and The London School of Medicine
Revive Spine and Pain Center, Marlton Queen Mary University of London
New Jersey London, UK
USA

Yodit Tefera, MD
Physician
Swedish Spine, Sports, & Musculoskeletal Medicine
Swedish Medical Center
Seattle, Washington
USA
Acknowledgments

A huge thank you is well deserved for my wife, who has
been patient and very supportive during the completion
of this atlas. My siblings and the community I grew up in
continue to serve as major inspiration for me. Additionally,
my fellow associate editors John Pitts and Walter Sussman
have made an almost gargantuan task as seamless and toler-
able as possible. The contributing authors have been great
to work with and their expertise is appreciated. A special
thank you to all of the associate editors as well; I consider
all of you as leaders in the field and most of you have served
as a mentor for me at some point. Prior to starting PM&R
residency at Emory University, I had no idea orthobiologics
existed. I definitely owe an additional huge thank you to
John Pitts, who is largely responsible for introducing me to
orthobiologics and providing excellent training during my
Fellowship at the Centeno-Schultz Clinic, which served as
ground zero for the development and fine tuning of many of
these procedural techniques. Last but not least, thank you to
Elsevier for seeing the vision for the atlas and definitely the
readers, who will ultimately lead to the continued evolution
of the field.
Chris Williams, MD
I would like to thank my family, especially my wife and
three children, for their patience and understanding over
this past year, and my co-editors Dr. Chris Williams and Dr.
John Pitts, whose clinical skill and time are reflected in the
broad scope of this book. While at Emory, I had the benefit
of training with so many talented musculoskeletal and spine
physicians, whose focus on individualized patient care,
minimally invasive image-guided treatments, and finding
new and effective treatments influenced this text and con-
tinue to guide my practice. A special thank you to Dr. Ken
Mautner. I wouldn’t be where I am today without his men-
torship and introduction to this innovative field. I would
like to also recognize Drs. Hassan Monfared, Lee Kneer,
and John Xerogeanes at Emory and Drs. John Lin and Eric
Shaw at the Shepherd Center for their time and guidance.
Thank you to all whose work, expertise, and support helped
with this textbook, including all the contributing authors,
publishing team Elsevier, and all the readers. Finally, a big
thank you to my patients and colleagues who continue to
teach me daily.
Walter Sussman, DO

I would first like to thank my wife for allowing me the

extra time required to edit this book. I surely could not
accomplish much without the love and support of my wife,
children, mother, and family. I would like to thank Dr.
Kenneth Mautner for first introducing me to PRP in resi-
dency. I would like to thank Drs. Christopher Centeno and
John Schultz for pioneering much of this field and serving
as great mentors and colleagues. Also, thank you to Dr.
Ron Hanson for teaching me many of these techniques as
a fellow. Many thanks to all the contributing authors for
their time and expertise. Thank you to my staff who helped
me acquire so many pictures for the book. Thanks to my
co-editors, colleagues, and friends, Dr. Christopher Wil-
liams and Dr. Walter Sussman. It has been an honor and
privilege to tackle this monumental task with you. Thank
you to my patients for humbling and teaching me daily.
Additionally, thanks to our publishing team at Elsevier for
all the hard work of bringing this to print. Lastly, thank
you to all the readers who will see this book as you are the
reason for this.
John Pitts, MD

xx
 S E C T I ON I Introduction
1
Introduction to
Interventional
Orthopedics and Review
of the Pathophysiology of
Orthopedic Conditions
WALTER I. SUSSMAN, JOHN PITTS, AND CHRIS WILLIAMS
Interventional orthopedics is a developing field that
attempts to bridge the gap between traditional non-opera-
tive orthopedics (e.g., sports medicine, interventional spine
or pain medicine) and surgical interventions. This field
expands the traditional approach to orthopedic problems,
broadening the number of diagnoses and pathology that can
be targeted with minimally invasive injections and proce-
dures. For instance, instead of only evaluating orthopedic
pathology as severe enough versus not severe enough for
surgery, we offer alternative interventions for patients that
have not responded to conservative therapy such as patients
with partial tendon or ligament tears, ligament laxity, and
nerve entrapment syndromes where surgical options are
limited. The use of diagnostic ultrasound to complement
the traditional orthopedic history and examination allows
the clinician to more accurately diagnose and then target the
underlying soft tissue and joint pathology.
Instead of traditional interventions being limited to
unguided injections and surgery, interventional orthope-
dics utilizes interventional musculoskeletal ultrasound and
fluoroscopy to guide injections to expand treatment options
with the goal of precisely targeting and treating common
orthopedic problems. The use of image guidance for pro-
cedures has increased over the past decades, largely driven
by decreased equipment costs, patient safety initiatives, and
higher-resolution imaging.1–3 In many cases, “blind” injec-
tions have been supplanted by image guidance, which gives
the clinician the ability to directly visualize the target tissues
and more accurately target specific pathology.
Therapeutic injections may include corticosteroids, but
there is a focus on understanding the appropriate role of
alternative injectates, which can be utilized to more accu-
rately address the underlying pathophysiology. With the
advent and expansion of regenerative treatments and ortho-
biologics, there is an increasing emphasis on tissue preserva-
tion, restoration of tissue function, and healing rather than
solely procedures that target “inflammation” and only pro-
vide temporary pain relief, or more invasive surgical proce-
dures carrying increased cost and risk of complications.
The traditional approach to the management of muscu-
loskeletal pathology has largely been driven by locating and
treating the primary pain generator. A good example is the
treatment of low back pain. Typically, the interventionalist
would try and identify a primary pain (i.e., the nerve root,
facet joint, sacroiliac joint dysfunction, myofascial pain, or
intradiscal pathology) and construct a treatment plan to spe-
cifically address the area of the spine most likely responsible
for the patient symptoms. Conversely, an interventional
orthopedics approach would take an approach of addressing
the entire spine as a “functional spinal unit” and consider
the interplay of these structures and the biomechanical role
of adjacent ligaments, tendons, and muscles. The overall
goal extends beyond general pain management and looks to
address the underlying etiology of musculoskeletal pathol-
ogy for long-term improvements in functional outcomes.
With this in mind, the treatment plan for low back pain
may include treating the lumbar facets, corresponding level
epidurals if there is myoneural dysfunction on examination
1
2 SEC T I O N I Introduction
(e.g., weakness or gluteal enthesopathy at the posterior iliac
crest), supraspinous and interspinous ligaments for stability,
and possibly the multifidus muscle if there is decreased acti-
vation on examination and atrophy on magnetic resonance
imaging (MRI).
The convergence of advances in imaging, an evolving
understanding of the pathophysiology of both acute and
chronic degenerative pathology, and a growing interest in
minimally invasive approaches to orthopedic pathology has
fueled this field and has expanded the type of injections and
procedures performed.1 Some of the procedures discussed
in this text did not exist before the widespread adoption
of ultrasound. Many of these new procedures have become
more common, including nerve hydrodissection, barbotage
of calcific tendinosis, and percutaneous needle tenotomy
procedures. Others are characterized by using specialized
surgical tools or devices to duplicate surgical procedures
using a percutaneous approach that will expand and con-
tinue to be adopted due to improved safety and morbidity.
The growth of regenerative injections, including but not
limited to dextrose, platelet-rich plasma, and autologous
stem cells, has also driven the emergence of new techniques
and procedures. In some cases, the use of these treatments
clinically has outpaced the scientific data. The scientific
literature will undoubtedly evolve, and the field of inter-
ventional orthopedics will continue to mature and as we
explore alternatives to many of the more traditional injec-
tates and many surgical techniques that have limited evi-
dence and efficacy.4,5 Several studies have been published
that question whether nonsurgical conservative measures,
sham surgeries, or placebo therapy is as effective as manage-
ment. In some cases, it is unclear if the traditional injec-
tions with corticosteroids or surgical interventions are better
than non-operative management, placebo, or sham surgery,
including the intermediate and long-term benefit of corti-
costeroids,6–9 arthroscopic meniscectomy, and debridement
in patients with arthritis,9–17 or subacromial decompression
surgery for rotator cuff impingement.18–21
This introductory chapter focuses on the composition
and organization of different tissue types and the current
concepts in the pathophysiology of orthopedic conditions
and how our understanding of common musculoskeletal
conditions has influenced current and future management
strategies. Conventional nonoperative therapies have tar-
geted inflammation, but inflammation is important to the
healing process. Treatment strategies must be tailored to
the underlying tissue involved (nerve, muscle, tendon, lig-
ament, bone, and cartilage) and the underlying pathology.
Tendinopathy
Tendons come in various shapes and sizes and connect
muscle to bone. The normal tendon structure is largely
composed of collagen and proteoglycans. Type I collagen
comprises approximately 65% to 80% of the dry mass of
the tendon, with smaller amounts of type II, III, IV, V,
IX, and X collagen also present.22 Collagen molecules are
cross-linked polypeptide chains, and their principal role is
to resist tension, while proteoglycans are primarily respon-
sible for the viscoelastic behavior of the tendon.23 The ten-
don is organized in a helical architecture, comparable to
man-made ropes.24 This helical organization of the tendon
components is present at various levels or organizations,
including when collagen fibers are bundled together to form
fascicles, and fascicles are bundled to form the tendon itself.
The cellular component of the tendon is made up of
tenoblasts and tenocytes arranged in parallel rows among
the collagen fibers. Tenoblasts are immature tendon cells
and transform into tenocytes as they mature. Tenocytes
function to synthesize collagen and other components of
the extracellular matrix (ECM). Tenoblasts and tenocytes
comprise 90% of the cellular component of the tendon,
with the remaining 5% to 10% made up of chondrocytes,
synovial cells, and vascular cells.22,25
A thin film of loose connective tissue (endotenon) is pres-
ent between the fascicles, allowing the fascicles to slide inde-
pendently against each other. The endotenon is continuous
with the connective tissue (epitenon) that surrounds the ten-
don as a whole (Fig. 1.1). Some tendons, such as the Achil-
les tendon, have a paratenon that surrounds the tendon but
separate from the tendon itself.23 The paratenon is made up
of type I and III collagen fibers, and the inner surface is lined
by synovial cells. In some cases, the tendon is surrounded by
a true synovial sheath. There is often great confusion when
describing the tissue that surrounds the tendon.
The tendon inserts on bone in the form of a myo-enthesis
or cartilaginous entheses. Myo-enthesis have superior blood
supply and are less prone to degenerative pathology. Intrin-
sic blood supply to the tendon is located at the myoten-
dinous and osteotendinous junction, with extrinsic blood
supply coming from the paratenon and synovial sheath.
The musculotendinous junctions and entheses are vulner-
able sites, and increased age and mechanical loading can
decrease vascular supply to these areas. Small afferent nerves
throughout the paratenon form plexuses with penetrating
branches innervating the tendon.
Areas of the tendon with poor blood supply are at
increased risk of injury. While tendon injuries can occur in
the mid-tendon (i.e., Achilles), most pathology and pain arise
at the enthesis. Poor blood supply predisposes damaged ten-
dons to tissue hypoxia. Tendinopathy is thought to develop
from excessive loading and tensile strain. Although load is
a major component in the development pathology, the eti-
ology of tendinopathy is likely multifactorial and includes
genetics,26 age,27 body composition,28 comorbidities (e.g.,
dyslipidemias, rheumatoid disease, tumors, infections, heri-
table connective tissue diseases, endocrinopathies including
thyroid disease, metabolic diseases including diabetes), and
medication exposure (e.g., statin, fluoroquinolones).29
The interplay between structural change, dysfunction,
and pain is still not fully understood. Historically, ten-
don pain has been described as tendinitis, implying that
inflammation was the central pathologic process. At the
cellular level in early and chronic tendinopathy, there are
 CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Interventional Orthopedics and Review of the Pathophysiology of Orthopedic Conditions
Primary fiber bundle
Secondary fiber bundle
Collagen fiber
Collagen fibril
Endotenon
• Fig. 1.1
an increased number of leukocytes (primarily macrophages
and mast cells).30–32 However, compared to rheumatoid
arthritis and other immune-driven pathology, the number
of leukocytes is small,29 and there has been widespread rec-
ognition that the terminology of tendinitis, tendinosis, and
paratenonitis should reflect the histopathologic feature of
the tendon.33
Histopathologic studies have shown the progression
from normal ECM to reactive response and tendon disre-
pair, characterized by greater tissue matrix breakdown, col-
lagen separation, neovascularization, and proliferation of
abnormal tenocytes. The new model of tendon pathology
is of a continuum that has three stages: reactive tendinopa-
thy, tendon disrepair (failed healing), and degenerative ten-
dinopathy.34–36 While these are described as three distinct
stages for convenience, the idea of a continuum recognizes
that the tendon can move forward or back along this con-
tinuum. This model highlights the need to tailor treatments
to the specific tendon pathology and that a single interven-
tion is unlikely to be efficacious in every case.
Ligament Injury
Similar to tendon tissue, ligaments are constructed from
dense regular connective tissue and can vary in size, form,
orientation, and location.37 Skeletal ligaments stabilize the
joint and guide the joint through a normal range of motion
and provide proprioception to coordinate movements.37,38
The orientation of collagen fibrils tends to be in the direc-
tion of applied force, and while tendon collagen fibrils
tend to be in parallel, the ligament collagen fibrils are not
uniformly oriented as forces are applied in more than one
direction.38 Type I collagen makes up 85% of the ligament,
depending on the type of ligament, with the rest of the
3
Tendon
Tertiary fiber bundle
Paratenon
Epitenon
Hierarchy of a Tendon.
ligament composed of type III, VI,V, XI, and XIV colla-
gen.37 Collagen bundles within ligaments have a crimped
appearance, and with stress, the ligament elongates as col-
lagen fibers uncrimp. This allows the ligament to elongate
without sustaining damage, contributing to the viscoelastic
property of the ligament.37
In both tendons and ligaments, the major cell type is
the fibroblast, or ligamentoblast and ligamentocytes.37
Epiligamentous plexus forms a net-like branching anasto-
motic pattern on the surface of the ligament with branches
that penetrate the ligament and become intraligamentous
vessels distributed into longitudinal channels within the
ligament.39 The distribution of blood vessels varies among
ligaments, and compared to the synovial tissue or bone,
ligaments appear to be relatively hypovascular.39
Ligaments are most often injured in traumatic injuries
and follow the three phases of healing (inflammation, pro-
liferative, and remodeling).40 Although the ligament may
heal, the scar tissue that forms has major differences in col-
lagen types,41 failure of collagen crosslinking,42 altered cell
connections,43 small collagen fibril diameter,44 and increased
vascularity.45 Even after fully healing, the ligament matrix
apparels grossly, histologically, and biomechanically differ-
ent from normal ligament tissue.46 The remodeled ligament
can contain material other than collagen, including blood
vessels, adipose cells, and inflammatory cells, resulting in
weakness.37,46,47 In studies of injured medial collateral liga-
ments (MCLs), the ligament typically remains weaker after
healing and only regains 40% to 80% of the strength and
stiffness compared to normal MCLs.46,48 The viscoelas-
tic property of an injured ligament has a somewhat better
recovery, returning to within 10% to 20% of normal.46
Ligaments have a poor regenerative capacity due to the
low cell density and lack of blood flow, and after an injury,
4 SEC T I O N I Introduction
the tissue is weaker, disorganized, and prone to reinjury.40
These persistent collagen abnormalities can present as symp-
toms of instability, with 7% to 42% of subjects reporting
symptoms even 1 year after injury.49 Early resumption of
activity can stimulate repair and restoration of function,
while prolonged rest and immobilization delay or adversely
affect recovery.50–53 In chronic instability, traditional treat-
ment strategies, including immobilization, rest, nonsteroi-
dal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and corticosteroid
injections fail to address the underlying pathophysiology.
In vitro studies have shown platelet-rich plasma (PRP)
induces proliferation of fibroblasts and the production on
type I collagen,54 and there has been interest in the use of
orthobiologics in the regeneration of ligaments.55
Cartilage Injury
There are two common types of cartilage: hyaline and fibro-
cartilage. Hyaline cartilage is present at the connection
between the ribs and the sternum, in the trachea, and on
the articular surfaces of synovial joints. Hyaline cartilage
is composed of a rich ground substance, glycosaminogly-
cans (GAGs), and collagen fibers (mainly type II collagen).
Unlike most tissues, articular cartilage is devoid of blood
vessels, nerves, or lymphatics. Fibrocartilage is present in
intervertebral discs and meniscal tissue.
Hyaline Cartilage
Articular cartilage is hyaline cartilage within synovial joints
and functions as a shock-absorbing tissue that provides low
friction movement during articulation. Chondrocytes are
sparsely distributed throughout the dense ECM of the artic-
ular cartilage, and the ECM is primarily composed of col-
lagen, proteoglycans, and water (Fig. 1.2). The composition
of the ECM varies within different zones of the articular
cartilage, and articular cartilage is typically divided into four
zones: superficial, middle, deep, and calcified (Table 1.1).56
Articular surface
Superficial zone
Middle zone
Deep zone
Calcified zone
A Cancellous bone
• Fig. 1.2
Structure of articular cartilage with (A) schematic diagram of the cellular organization in the different
zones and (B) diagram of the collagen fiber architecture.
Injury to the articular cartilage can occur from a single
traumatic event or repetitive microtrauma. Progressive carti-
lage injury can be accompanied by alteration in the underly-
ing bone.
Articular cartilage has limited repair potential once dam-
aged. In mature articular cartilage, chondrocytes are quies-
cent and no longer divide with very little turnover of the
cartilage matrix.57 The articular cartilage receives nutrition
mainly through diffusion from the synovial membrane and
cyclic loading.58 The lack of a direct blood supply in articular
cartilage, paucity of cells, and high matrix to cell ratio cre-
ates a challenging healing environment, and full-thickness
articular cartilage defects rarely heal spontaneously.56 Treat-
ment approaches for focal cartilage defects or osteochondral
lesions vary, and there is no uniform approach. Techniques
to treat focal cartilage defects are usually divided into mar-
row-stimulating (reparative) and reconstructive techniques.
Isolated lesions to the cartilage should be differentiated
from osteoarthritis (OA), where there is more diffuse dam-
age to the articular surface. While impacting the same tis-
sue, the pathophysiology differs. OA is characterized by the
involvement of the cartilage, synovial membrane, and sub-
chondral bone, making OA a disease of the whole joint.57
The pathology is multifactorial but is driven by inflamma-
tory mediators within the joint, resulting in pain, deformity,
and loss of function.59
The earlier changes in the cartilage often appear at the
joint surface in areas where mechanical and shear stress are
the greatest.60 In OA, chondrocytes go from being quies-
cent to becoming “activated,” characterized by cell prolifera-
tion, matrix degradation and remodeling, and inappropriate
hypertrophy-like maturation.61 Degradation of the articular
cartilage, thickening of the subchondral bone, osteophyte
formation, and synovial inflammation. This proinflamma-
tory environment can result in reduced chondrogenesis,
as well as suppression of type II collagen synthesis.62,63
These negative effects of inflammation on chondrogenic
B
 CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Interventional Orthopedics and Review of the Pathophysiology of Orthopedic Conditions
TABLE
1.1   Articular Cartilage Structure: Zones of the Extra-Cellular Matrix
Zone Cell
Superficial (STZ) • H igh number of flattened chondrocytes
• Tightly packed collagen (type II and IX) fibers,
aligned parallel to the articular surface
Middle • F ew chondrocytes
• Thicker collagen fibrils, organized obliquely
Deep • C hondrocytes arranged in a columnar
orientation
• Largest collagen fibrils, aligned perpendicular
to the joint surface
• Highest proteoglycan content
Calcified • Cell population is scarce
differentiation may have negative effects on cell-based
therapy.
Treatment strategies for OA often involve behavioral
(e.g., exercise and weight loss), pharmacologic (e.g., oral
medications, injection therapy, and biologics), and in end
stages, joint replacement surgery. Intra-articular injections
are common in the management of OA; however, the dense
articular cartilage is less permeable to injected medications
penetrating the cartilage extracellular matrix, and the injec-
tate can be rapidly cleared by the lymphatic system.64,65 In
recent years, there has been a growing interest in alternative
approaches to injection therapy and altering joint homeo-
stasis.57 There has been increased interest in the treatment of
the subchondral bone in patients with OA and focal lesions.
The proposed mechanism is stimulating subchondral bone
that influences the articular cartilage because of communi-
cation and cross-talk between both tissues.66,67
Fibrocartilage
Fibrocartilage contains high levels of type I and II collagen
and is present between vertebral bodies, the pubic symphy-
sis, menisci, labrum, and the tendon–bone interface.68
Intervertebral Disc
The intervertebral discs’ major role is mechanical, transmit-
ting load and forces through the spinal column.69 Structur-
ally, the intervertebral disc is composed of the inner nucleus
pulposus (NP) and an outer annulus fibrosus. The NP is
gelatinous and primarily formed from water, proteoglycans,
and randomly organized type II collagen, and the intrinsic
hydrostatic pressure of the NP resists compressive loads.70
The outer fibrocartilaginous annulus fibrosus is composed
of 15 to 25 concentric rings (lamellae), with elastin fibers
and type I and II collagen fibers lying in parallel and pro-
vides the tensile strength of the disc.71
5
Thickness Function
10%–20% Resists tensile forces and
protects deeper layers from
shear stresses
40%–60% Resists compressive forces
30% Resists compressive forces
Anchors collagen fibrils to the
subchondral bone
With age, the nucleus generally becomes more fibrotic
and less gel-like,72 and the collagen and elastin of the annu-
lar lamellae become irregular and disorganized.69 It can
be challenging to differentiate changes that occur due to
aging and those that might be “pathologic.” The most sig-
nificant change that occurs in disc degeneration is the loss
of proteoglycan (aggrecan), which is responsible for main-
taining tissue hydration and impacts the disc load-bearing
behavior.73 The collagen population of the disc also changes
with degeneration, but these changes are not as obvious as
those of the proteoglycans.74,75 The loss of proteoglycan
and matrix disorganization leads to an inability to maintain
hydration, and when loaded, they lose height, bulge, and
subsequently lead to inappropriate stress along the endplate
or the annulus.76,77 The loss of disc height can also affect
adjacent structures, resulting in spinal stenosis, apophyseal
joint arthropathy, and ligamentum flavum hypertrophy.
The intervertebral disc is largely avascular and must rely
on passive diffusion from adjacent endplate vessels for nutri-
tion.78 The limited vascular supply and indirect access to
nutrition limit the discs’ intrinsic capacity for remodeling
and repair. Traditional therapies may provide symptomatic
relief but do not target the underlying degenerative patho-
physiology. Newer cell-based therapies aim to achieve cel-
lular repair.79
Meniscus
Vascularization of the meniscus is from the lateral, medial,
and middle genicular arteries, forming a perimeniscal capil-
lary plexus. There is significant discrepancy in the vascular-
ity of the meniscus, and the meniscus is often described as
having three distinct zones characterized by the degree of
vascularization. The outer zones with the greatest vascularity
region are the red-red zone and the transitional red-white
zone.80 The inner or central avascular zone is the white-
white zone. The healing capacity is directly related to blood
6 SEC T I O N I Introduction
circulation, with the peripheral meniscus (red-red and red-
white zone) having the greatest potential for healing.80,81
The morphology of the meniscus cells also can be char-
acterized by the zone in which the cells are found. There are
three cell populations within the meniscus. The outer zone
is mainly populated with fibroblast-like cells with an oval,
fusiform shape and long cell extensions, which facilitate
communication among cells and the extracellular matrix.
These fibroblast-like cells are surrounded by dense connec-
tive tissue consisting of type I collagen, with a small percent-
age of glycoproteins and type III and V collagen present.82
The main cell type in the inner zone is classified as fibro-
chondrocytes or chondrocyte-like cells, and they have a
chondrocyte appearance (round or oval-shaped). These
fibrochondrocytes are embedded in a fibrocartilage matrix
consisting mainly of type I (60%) and II (40%) collagen
and aggrecan.83
The superficial zone of the meniscus harbors progenitor
cells.84
Meniscal injuries are classified depending on location,
thickness, and resulting instability. The type of tear has a
significant impact on the ability of the tear to heal and the
most appropriate and effective therapy. Partial or total men-
iscectomy can lead to altered loading dynamics, leading to
degeneration and OA on an average of 14 years following
surgery.4,85 A detailed discussion of surgical management is
beyond the scope of this chapter, but in general, there is
an increased emphasis on meniscal preservation whenever
possible to preserve loading dynamics in the knee. Tears in
the vascular region do have the potential to heal due to the
existing blood supply and the possibility of progenitor cells
in this region.86–88
Bone Pathology
The skeleton serves a variety of functions, providing support,
permitting movement, and protecting vital internal organs.
The skeleton also serves as a reservoir of hematopoietic stem
cells, which give rise to blood cell lineages and mesenchy-
mal stromal cells that are multipotent with the potential to
differentiate into bone, cartilage, fat, or fibrous connective
tissue.89,90 In order to understand the mechanical properties
of bone clinically, it is important to understand the compo-
nent structure of bone.
At the macrostructure level, bone can be characterized
as cancellous (trabecular) or cortical (compact) bone, with
cortical bone forming a dense outer shell around the hon-
eycomb-like structure of cancellous bone. Different bones
have different ratios of cortical to cancellous bone. In long
bones, the diaphysis is primarily composed of dense corti-
cal bone, while the metaphysis and epiphysis are composed
of cancellous bone surrounded by dense cortical bone. In
general, cancellous bone is more metabolically active and
remodeled more often than cortical bone.91 Bone is sur-
rounded by an inner endosteal and an outer periosteal sur-
face. The periosteum is a fibrous connective tissue sheath
surrounding cortical bone and is tightly attached to the
bone by thick collagenous fibers (Sharpey’s fibers). Unlike
bone, the periosteum has nociceptive nerve endings and
contains a store of bone-remodeling cells (osteoblasts) that
play a role in healing fractures.92
The microstructure of bone is highly complex. In cortical
bone, large vascular channels (Haversian canals and Volk-
mann canals) are oriented along the longitudinal direction
of the bone and contain the blood supply to compact bone.
These channels are surrounded by compact highly mineral-
ized cylindrical rings (lamellae). The lamellae and Haversian
canal form the osteon or Haversian systems, which is the
chief structural unit of cortical bone.93 Cancellous bone is
spongy and fills the inside of many bones and has a rich
vascular supply.92,93
Regarding the nanostructures, the mineral content of
bone is mostly tiny mineral crystals (calcium phosphate–
based hydroxyapatite), which provide rigidity and load-
bearing strength to bone. The organic matrix is primarily
composed of collagenous proteins, which crosslink to add
stability to the bone matrix.94,95 Collagenous proteins
compose 85% to 90% of bone proteins, with bone matrix
mainly composed of type I collagen.91,94–96
The primary cellular component of bone cells are
osteocytes, osteoblasts, and osteoclasts. Osteoclasts are
derived from a monocyte stem-cell lineage and carry
out resorption of old bone, while osteoblasts are bone-
forming cells and synthesize a new bone matrix. Osteo-
blasts are found in large numbers in the periosteum and
endosteum, while osteocytes are osteoblasts that have
become trapped in the calcified bone matrix. Together,
osteoblasts and osteoclasts influence the remodeling of
bone after trauma.92
Bone adapts to physical stimuli, dietary changes, or
injury.97 Bone is constantly undergoing remodeling to pre-
serve bone strength. Remodeling occurs at sites that require
repair but also occurs in a random manner throughout
life.98–100 Woven bone is put down rapidly during growth
or repair, with fibers aligned at random. As a result, woven
bone has lower strength than lamellar bone, which has
its fibers oriented in parallel and in line with the axis of
stress.101
Healing of cancellous bone with its rich vascular supply
occurs more rapidly compared to the cortical bone that can
be complicated by delay or nonunion. In normal fracture
healing, osteoblasts form immature woven bone, result-
ing in early callus formation at the fracture margins. With
remodeling, callus is replaced by lamellar bone.92 Delayed
union is when healing is slower than anticipated, and a non-
union of a fracture is defined as a fracture where healing has
not occurred at 9 months.102 There is a growing interest in
orthobiologics for nonunion fractures, but there have been
conflicting results in the literature.103,104 Preclinical in vivo
studies have suggested PRP may enhance bone regenera-
tion with favorable results, but there are inherent limita-
tions to the clinical translation of basic science studies and
in the majority of studies PRP was used to augment surgery
either at the time of surgery or a delayed injection.103,105
 CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Interventional Orthopedics and Review of the Pathophysiology of Orthopedic Conditions 7

Fewer studies have examined autologous stem cells in non- the axons with myelin. Myelin is a lipid-rich sheath that
unions,106 and the real benefit of biologics for bone healing surrounds and insulates the axon and facilitates the trans-
is unknown.103,104 mission of electrical signals.112,113
Unlike fractures that are generally classified by mecha- Surrounding the peripheral nerve fibers and supporting
nism of injury (i.e. traumatic, pathologic, stress), the events the Schwann cell is connective tissue. Individual nerve fibers
leading to avascular necrosis (AVN) are incompletely under- are embedded in the endoneurium, and each nerve fascicle
stood, have unclear causality, and have delayed diagno- is surrounded by the perineurium. The outermost connec-
ses.107,108 Ischemia or direct toxic effects on bone marrow tive tissue of the peripheral nerve is the epineurium.114 A
and cells may contribute to AVN, and necrosis predomi- variety of mechanisms can injure the nerve. Systemic con-
nantly develops at sites composed predominantly of adi- ditions include autoimmune inflammation or vasculitis,
pocytes (yellow marrow), such as the femoral head.107 The infectious, metabolic (i.e., diabetes mellitus), nutritional,
natural history of AVN is better understood than the early toxin or drug-induced injury, or hereditary, and usually
triggering factors, with necrosis, inadequate remodeling, involve multiple nerves in multiple compartments or bilat-
and eventually collapse of the necrotic segment and OA. eral distributions.115–122 Local pathology includes blunt or
Basic science and clinical trials of PRP may be more appro- penetrating trauma, traction or stretch injury, or freezing
priate as an adjunct therapy, while autologous stem cells injury.123 Injury to the nerve can be divided into demyelin-
have shown promising results.109,110 ating and axonal pathology, involving a loss of the myelin
sheath surrounding the axons or injury to the axon itself.
Nerve Injury Injury to the peripheral nerve can be classified according
to the severity of injury, and different classification systems
Nervous tissue consists of two types of cells, neurons and exist (Table 1.2).124–126
glial cells.111 Neurons are responsible for communication
and are composed of the cell body (soma), dendrites,
and axon. The dendrite receives information from other TABLE
neurons, allowing the cell to integrate multiple impulses. 1.2   Classification of Nerve Injury
Most cell bodies have multiple dendrites arising from Seddon Sunderland Nerve Injury
the cell body, and dendrite-branching patterns are char-
acteristic of each neuron. The axon arises from the cell Neurapraxia Grade I Focal segment
demyelination
body and propagates nerve impulses between cells, trans-
porting nerve impulses along the axon, and the axon can Axonotemesis Grade II Axon damaged with
branch repeatedly to communicate with many target intact endoneurium
cells. At the terminal end of the axon, synaptic junctions Axonotemesis Grade III Axon and endoneurium
facilitate the transmission of the nerve impulse from one damaged with intact
neuron to another or the target cell (muscle or gland perineurium
cells) (Fig. 1.3). Axonotemesis Grade IV Axon, endoneurium, and
Glial cells play a supporting role. The supporting glial perineurium damaged
cells differ in the central nervous system compared to the with intact epineurium
glial cells in the peripheral nervous system (PNS).111 In the Neurotmesis Grade V Complete nerve
PNS, there are two types of glial cells: (1) satellite cells sur- transection
rounding the cell bodies, and (2) Schwann cells ensheathing

Cell body

Dendrites

Schwann cells
Axon Endings

Synapse

Node of Ranvier

• Fig. 1.3
8 SEC T I O N I Introduction
Subperineural and endoneural edema
Impairment of blood−nerve barrier
Chronic tissue changes causing perineural thickening
Demyelination
Wallerian degeneration
•Fig. 1.4 Nerve Compression Pathology Cascade. (Modified from
Barrett SL, Nickerson DS. Pain Practice Management; 2016.)
The type of trauma has a major influence on neuro-
logic recovery, and injuries can vary from a mild injury
due to compression resulting in mild or no pathologic
changes to a traumatic stretch or penetrating injury with
severely damaged and complete disruption of the normal
nerve architecture. Compressive neuropathies can involve
any peripheral nerve, are not always captured by the com-
monly used classification schemes, but generally fall under
the general class of neuropraxia or Grade 1 nerve injuries.
These are defined by focal demyelination at the site of
compression and lack of axonal damage, although in later
stages as the condition progresses, compression injuries
can result in axonal damage.123
Chronic nerve compression injuries, such as carpal
tunnel or cubital tunnel syndrome, are the most com-
mon peripheral nerve pathology.127 The underlying
pathophysiology of these focal entrapment neuropathies
is primarily derived from animal models with bands or
ligatures placed around the sciatic nerve.128–133 While
these models cannot reproduce in vivo nerve compres-
sion, the animal models have shown that physical com-
pression with ligature or banding of the nerve can result
in histologic changes and slowing of the nerve conduc-
tion velocity.129,130,134 Increased pressure can compress
the blood vessels that supply the nerve, impairing micro-
circulation and leading to epineural ischemia, venous sta-
sis, and extraneural edema (Fig. 1.4).135 This can result
in fibroblast proliferation, connective tissue fibrosis and
scaring around the nerve,130 and late process focal demy-
elination and remyelination.133,136,137 This process is
distinct and different from traumatic crush injuries and
results in Schwann cell proliferation in areas and thin-
ner myelin following injury.137,138 In many cases, com-
pression or entrapment occurs in fibro-osseous structures
formed by ligaments and bones but can also occur sec-
ondary to trauma and/or scar tissue.139
Treatment algorithms reflect the wide range of treat-
ment options from medical to surgical management
depending on the severity and duration of compression.
Corticosteroid injections have a long history in manag-
ing carpal tunnel syndrome, but the role remains con-
troversial with strong evidence only for short-term
benefits.140,141 Studies of corticosteroid injection for
carpal tunnel syndrome have shown that the volume of
the injectate does influence outcomes independent of
the corticosteroid, with larger- volume injections signifi-
cantly improving outcomes.142 Hydrodissection of the
surrounding constrictive tissue and flushing of inflam-
matory mediators has become more common clinically,
but the literature on the hydrodissection of entrapment
neuropathies is largely limited to case reports and retro-
spective studies.139,143 Limited high-quality clinical data
exist to determine the efficacy of these procedures. There
is an increasing interest in biologics for nerve pathol-
ogy, and a recent meta-analysis published in May 2020
of randomized trials comparing PRP to control groups
(corticosteroid injection, saline injection, and splinting)
for carpal tunnel syndrome demonstrated significant and
similar improvement in visual analog score for pain and
nerve conduction studies in the PRP group compared to
controls.144 In recalcitrant cases, peripheral nerve decom-
pression procedures vary widely, and there has been
increased interest in limiting incision size and minimally
invasive approaches.145
Muscle Injury
The basic cellular unit of skeletal muscle is myocytes, or
muscle fibers. A network of connective tissue (endomysium)
surrounds each muscle fiber. Adjacent fibers are bundled
together in a fasciculus and surrounded by the perimysium,
and fasciculi are grouped together to form the complete
muscle and are surrounded by epimysium (Fig. 1.5).146
Each muscle fiber is composed of thousands of myofibrils,
and the subunits are known as sarcomeres. The sarcomere
is the basic contractile unit of a single muscle fiber and is
composed of protein filaments that line up in parallel with
overlapping sets of actin (thin filaments) and myosin (thick
filaments).147
Myocytes are surrounded by a cell, or plasma membrane
(plasmalemma), that along with various layers of the base-
ment membrane for the sarcolemma provide external sup-
port and help maintain the shape of the muscle fiber.146
In some texts, the plasmalemma and sarcolemma are used
interchangeably. The sarcoplasmic reticulum and T system
is a tubular system running parallel to the myofibrils and
allows communication by relaying nerve impulses along the
fibers and delivering calcium to the cells, which is necessary
for muscle contraction.146
Nerve axon terminals interdigitate with the motor end-
plate of the muscle membrane, forming a neuromuscular
junction (NMJ).146 When an action potential reaches the
axon terminal, acetylcholine (ACh) crosses the NMJ and
binds to receptors on the plasmalemma, and this process
is what is inhibited with botulinum toxin (for more, refer
to Chapter 11). Having depolarized the muscle membrane,
 CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Interventional Orthopedics and Review of the Pathophysiology of Orthopedic Conditions
cle
us
M and aged muscles can also show an impaired response to
es
icl
sc
Fa
cle
us
M genic precursors (satellite cells) that are dormant in the
ril
f ib
yo
M
• Fig. 1.5
The Hierarchical Structure of a Muscle. (2022). Used with per-
mission of Elsevier. All rights reserved.
the action potential spreads rapidly along the muscle fiber,
releasing calcium from the sarcoplasmic reticulum and
resulting in a muscle contraction as the actin and myosin
fibers bind and slide in a ratchet-like fashion, shortening
the muscle.146
Muscle fibers are classified into two groups, type I (slow-
twitch) and type II (fast-twitch) fibers. Slow-twitch and
fast-twitch fibers refer to the time taken for each type of
fiber to reach peak tension, 110 milliseconds (ms) and 50
ms, respectively.146 Fiber types differ in the form of myosin
ATPase, structure of the sarcoplasmic reticulum, and neural
innervation, with more fibers per motor neuron in type II
fast-twitch fibers.148 Type I fibers are used in low-intensity
or endurance events, and type II fibers are used in short
duration, high-intensity activities.
Skeletal muscle has a robust capacity for regeneration
after focal injuries but is dependent on the type of injury
and severity.149–151 Muscle injuries caused by eccentric con-
traction typically damage the myofibrils, while other acute
injuries (laceration, contusions, toxins, or thermal injury)
largely damage the muscle cell membrane.152 Skeletal mus-
cle can compensate for up to a 20% loss in muscle mass,
but beyond this, muscle injuries with significant volumetric
loss typically will not heal without scar tissue formation and
9
denervation of the muscle distal to the site of injury.151,153 A
loss of skeletal muscle mass (sarcopenia) occurs with aging,
injury.149,154
Tearing in muscle tissue creates a gap between the
retracted fibers, and a hematoma will form at the site of
injury. The interaction growth factor in muscle regen-
eration is a complex process, but there has been an
interest in controlling the regenerative microenviron-
ment.150,151,155–158 The repair process has been described
in detail in a number of articles. In brief, resident myo-
periphery of healthy skeletal myofibers respond to signals
coming from damaged myofibers and create new fibers.
Over time, these nascent muscle fibers will continue to
bridge the gap.149,159
The local milieu of certain growth factors can have var-
ied effects on skeletal muscle cells. High concentrations of
certain growth factors have been shown to promote myo-
blast proliferation and prevent differentiation, while low
concentrations may induce myoblast differentiation and
multinucleated cell formation.160–162 PRP has shown a
contradictory effect on myogenic differentiation and may
even result in a fibrotic response, possibly due to variations
in PRP preparation or dosing.150 Recently platelet-poor
plasma (PPP) preparations have shown a robust ability to
induce human myoblast differentiation in vivo, and while
PPP may hold promise, no consensus exists and additional
investigation is needed.155
How to Use this Book
The primary objective of this text is to provide a reference
to inject most areas of the musculoskeletal system safely
and accurately. This text includes a comprehensive atlas
section, which details techniques to safely approach ultra-
sound and fluoroscopically guided musculoskeletal and
axial injections. It discusses the different types of injec-
tates the practitioner should consider when approaching
these structures and introduces new procedures and future
trends. The text provides the most up-to-date literature
on biologic injectates, techniques, indications, and sup-
porting evidence for varying techniques. However, some
of the newer techniques described may not be validated
in the current literature, and many do not have a clear
consensus on the appropriate injectates. Nevertheless, as
more research emerges and our understanding of the role
of orthobiolgics or other injectates emerges, this book
will still be relevant as a comprehensive guided injection
atlas. Additionally, we hope this text will also stimulate
new research and innovation that helps advance the field
of interventional orthopedics.
This text and atlas should serve as a reference tool and
an adjunct to formal training. It is not meant to replace
in-person instruction and hands-on training. This text does
not seek to teach a comprehensive orthopedic history and
physical examination, how to interpret imaging studies, or
10 SEC T I O N I Introduction
how to perform a diagnostic musculoskeletal ultrasound.
Clinicians should also understand alternative treatments,
including less-invasive options such as diet/weight loss,
orthotics and bracing, acupuncture, manual techniques and
physical/occupational therapy, and surgical indications to
properly counsel patients and to review all the treatment
options available.
References
1. Finnoff JT, Hall MM, Adams E, et al. American Medical Soci-
ety for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) position statement: inter-
ventional musculoskeletal ultrasound in sports medicine. PM R.
2015;7(2):151–168.e112.
2. Smith J, Finnoff JT. Diagnostic and interventional musculoskel-
etal ultrasound: part 1. Fundamentals. PM R. 2009;1(1):64–75.
3. Valente CM, Wagner SM. History of the American Institute of
Ultrasound in Medicine. J Ultrasound Med. 2005;24(2):131–
142.
4. Lohmander LS, Englund PM, Dahl LL, Roos EM. The long-
term consequence of anterior cruciate ligament and meniscus
injuries: osteoarthritis. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(10):1756–
1769.
5. Louw A, Diener I, Fernandez-de-Las-Penas C, Puentedura EJ.
Sham surgery in orthopedics: a systematic review of the litera-
ture. Pain Med. 2017;18(4):736–750.
6. Coombes BK, Bisset L, Vicenzino B. Efficacy and safety of cor-
ticosteroid injections and other injections for management of
tendinopathy: a systematic review of randomised controlled tri-
als. Lancet. 2010;376(9754):1751–1767.
7. Wernecke C, Braun HJ, Dragoo JL. The effect of intra-articular
corticosteroids on articular cartilage: a systematic review. Orthop
J Sports Med. 2015;3(5):2325967115581163.
8. Jayaram P, Kennedy DJ, Yeh P, Dragoo J. Chondrotoxic effects
of local anesthetics on human knee articular cartilage: a system-
atic review. PM R. 2019;11(4):379–400.
9. Cohen SB, Short CP, O’Hagan T, Wu HT, Morrison WB,
Zoga AC. The effect of meniscal tears on cartilage loss of the
knee: findings on serial MRIs. Phys Sportsmed. 2012;40(3):66–
76.
10. Katz JN, Shrestha S, Losina E, et al. Five-year outcome of opera-
tive and nonoperative management of meniscal tear in persons
older than forty-five years. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(2):273–
281.
11. Khan M, Evaniew N, Bedi A, Ayeni OR, Bhandari M.
Arthroscopic surgery for degenerative tears of the meniscus: a
systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ (Can Med Assoc J).
2014;186(14):1057–1064.
12. Sihvonen R, Paavola M, Malmivaara A, et al. Arthroscopic
partial meniscectomy versus placebo surgery for a degenerative
meniscus tear: a 2-year follow-up of the randomised controlled
trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(2):188–195.
13. Sihvonen R, Paavola M, Malmivaara A, et al. Arthroscopic par-
tial meniscectomy versus sham surgery for a degenerative menis-
cal tear. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(26):2515–2524.
14. Lubowitz JH, Brand JC, Rossi MJ. Nonoperative manage-
ment of degenerative meniscus tears is worth a try. Arthroscopy.
2020;36(2):327–328.
15. Netravali NA, Giori NJ, Andriacchi TP. Partial medial menis-
cectomy and rotational differences at the knee during walking. J
Biomech. 2010;43(15):2948–2953.
16. Thorlund JB, Juhl CB, Roos EM, Lohmander LS. Arthroscopic
surgery for degenerative knee: systematic review and meta-anal-
ysis of benefits and harms. BMJ. 2015;350:h2747.
17. Moseley JB, O’Malley K, Petersen NJ, et al. A controlled trial of
arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. N Engl J Med.
2002;347(2):81–88.
18. Karjalainen TV, Jain NB, Page CM, et al. Subacromial decom-
pression surgery for rotator cuff disease. Cochrane Database Syst
Rev. 2019;1:Cd005619.
19. Saltychev M, Virolainen P, Laimi K. Conservative treatment or
surgery for shoulder impingement: updated meta-analysis. Dis-
abil Rehabil. 2019:1–2.
20. Khan M, Alolabi B, Horner N, Bedi A, Ayeni OR, Bhandari
M. Surgery for shoulder impingement: a systematic review
and meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. CMAJ Open.
2019;7(1):E149–e158.
21. Toliopoulos P, Desmeules F, Boudreault J, et al. Efficacy of
surgery for rotator cuff tendinopathy: a systematic review. Clin
Rheumatol. 2014;33(10):1373–1383.
22. Sharma P, Maffulli N. Tendon injury and tendinopathy: healing
and repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(1):187–202.
23. Benjamin M, Kaiser E, Milz S. Structure-function relationships
in tendons: a review. J Anat. 2008;212(3):211–228.
24. Bozec L, van der Heijden G, Horton M. Collagen fibrils:
nanoscale ropes. Biophys J. 2007;92(1):70–75.
25. Kirkendall DT, Garrett WE. Function and biomechanics of
tendons. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 1997;7(2):62–66.
26. Kraemer R, Wuerfel W, Lorenzen J, Busche M, Vogt PM, Kno-
bloch K. Analysis of hereditary and medical risk factors in Achil-
les tendinopathy and Achilles tendon ruptures: a matched pair
analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012;132(6):847–853.
27. Murrell GA. Understanding tendinopathies. Br J Sports Med.
2002;36(6):392–393.
28. Franceschi F, Papalia R, Paciotti M, et al. Obesity as a risk
factor for tendinopathy: a systematic review. Int J Endocrinol.
2014;2014:670262.
29. Scott A, Backman LJ. Speed C. Tendinopathy: update on patho-
physiology. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2015;45(11):833–841.
30. Scott A, Lian O, Bahr R, Hart DA, Duronio V, Khan KM.
Increased mast cell numbers in human patellar tendinosis: cor-
relation with symptom duration and vascular hyperplasia. Br J
Sports Med. 2008;42(9):753–757.
31. Millar NL, Hueber AJ, Reilly JH, et al. Inflammation is
present in early human tendinopathy. Am J Sports Med.
2010;38(10):2085–2091.
32. Kragsnaes MS, Fredberg U, Stribolt K, Kjaer SG, Bendix K,
Ellingsen T. Stereological quantification of immune-competent
cells in baseline biopsy specimens from Achilles tendons: results
from patients with chronic tendinopathy followed for more
than 4 years. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(10):2435–2445.
33. Maffulli N, Khan KM, Puddu G. Overuse tendon condi-
tions: time to change a confusing terminology. Arthroscopy.
1998;14(8):840–843.
34. Cook JL, Purdam CR. Is tendon pathology a continuum? A
pathology model to explain the clinical presentation of load-
induced tendinopathy. Br J Sports Med. 2009;43(6):409–416.
35. Cook JL, Rio E, Purdam CR, Docking SI. Revisiting the
continuum model of tendon pathology: what is its merit in
clinical practice and research? Br J Sports Med. 2016;50(19):
1187–1191.
36. McCreesh K, Lewis J. Continuum model of tendon pathology—
where are we now? Int J Exp Pathol. 2013;94(4):242–247.
 CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Interventional Orthopedics and Review of the Pathophysiology of Orthopedic Conditions
37. Frank CB. Ligament structure, physiology and function. J Mus-
culoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2004;4(2):199–201.
38. Rumian AP, Wallace AL, Birch HL. Tendons and ligaments are
anatomically distinct but overlap in molecular and morphologi-
cal features—a comparative study in an ovine model. J Orthop
Res. 2007;25(4):458–464.
39. Bray RC, Fisher AW, Frank CB. Fine vascular anatomy of adult
rabbit knee ligaments. J Anat. 1990;172:69–79.
40. Molloy T, Wang Y, Murrell G. The roles of growth factors in
tendon and ligament healing. Sports Med. 2003;33(5):381–394.
41. Amiel D, Frank CB, Harwood FL, Akeson WH, Kleiner JB.
Collagen alteration in medial collateral ligament healing in a
rabbit model. Connect Tissue Res. 1987;16(4):357–366.
42. Frank C, McDonald D, Wilson J, Eyre D, Shrive N. Rab-
bit medial collateral ligament scar weakness is associated with
decreased collagen pyridinoline crosslink density. J Orthop Res.
1995;13(2):157–165.
43. Lo IK, Ou Y, Rattner JP, et al. The cellular networks of normal
ovine medial collateral and anterior cruciate ligaments are not accu-
rately recapitulated in scar tissue. J Anat. 2002;200(Pt 3):283–296.
44. Frank C, McDonald D, Bray D, et al. Collagen fibril diameters
in the healing adult rabbit medial collateral ligament. Connect
Tissue Res. 1992;27(4):251–263.
45. Bray RC, Rangayyan RM, Frank CB. Normal and healing liga-
ment vascularity: a quantitative histological assessment in the adult
rabbit medial collateral ligament. J Anat. 1996;188(Pt 1):87–95.
46. Plaas AH, Wong-Palms S, Koob T, Hernandez D, Marchuk L,
Frank CB. Proteoglycan metabolism during repair of the rup-
tured medial collateral ligament in skeletally mature rabbits.
Arch Biochem Biophys. 2000;374(1):35–41.
47. Jack EA. Experimental rupture of the medial collateral ligament
of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1950;32-b(3):396–402.
48. Shrive N, Chimich D, Marchuk L, Wilson J, Brant R, Frank
C. Soft-tissue "flaws" are associated with the material properties
of the healing rabbit medial collateral ligament. J Orthop Res.
1995;13(6):923–929.
49. Woo SL, Matthews JV, Akeson WH, Amiel D, Convery FR.
Connective tissue response to immobility. Correlative study of
biomechanical and biochemical measurements of normal and
immobilized rabbit knees. Arthritis Rheum. 1975;18(3):257–264.
50. Bray RC, Shrive NG, Frank CB, Chimich DD. The early
effects of joint immobilization on medial collateral ligament
healing in an ACL-deficient knee: a gross anatomic and biome-
chanical investigation in the adult rabbit model. J Orthop Res.
1992;10(2):157–166.
51. Hart DP, Dahners LE. Healing of the medial collateral ligament
in rats. The effects of repair, motion, and secondary stabilizing
ligaments. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987;69(8):1194–1199.
52. Tipton CM, James SL, Mergner W, Tcheng TK. Influence of
exercise on strength of medial collateral knee ligaments of dogs.
Am J Physiol. 1970;218(3):894–902.
53. Goldstein WM, Barmada R. Early mobilization of rabbit medial
collateral ligament repairs: biomechanic and histologic study.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1984;65(5):239–242.
54. Liu Y, Kalen A, Risto O, Wahlstrom O. Fibroblast proliferation
due to exposure to a platelet concentrate in vitro is pH depen-
dent. Wound Repair Regen. 2002;10(5):336–340.
55. Yilgor C, Yilgor Huri P, Huri G. Tissue engineering strategies in
ligament regeneration. Stem Cells Int. 2012;2012:374676.
56. Armiento AR, Alini M, Stoddart MJ. Articular fibrocartilage—
why does hyaline cartilage fail to repair? Adv Drug Deliv Rev.
2019;146:289–305.
11
57. Loeser RF, Goldring SR, Scanzello CR, Goldring MB. Osteo-
arthritis: a disease of the joint as an organ. Arthritis Rheum.
2012;64(6):1697–1707.
58. O’Hara BP, Urban JP, Maroudas A. Influence of cyclic load-
ing on the nutrition of articular cartilage. Ann Rheum Dis.
1990;49(7):536–539.
59. Blagojevic M, Jinks C, Jeffery A, Jordan KP. Risk factors for
onset of osteoarthritis of the knee in older adults: a systematic
review and meta-analysis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2010;18(1):
24–33.
60. Andriacchi TP, Mundermann A, Smith RL, Alexander EJ,
Dyrby CO, Koo S. A framework for the in vivo pathomechanics
of osteoarthritis at the knee. Ann Biomed Eng. 2004;32(3):447–
457.
61. Goldring MB, Marcu KB. Cartilage homeostasis in health and
rheumatic diseases. Arthritis Res Ther. 2009;11(3):224.
62. Wehling N, Palmer GD, Pilapil C, et al. Interleukin-1beta and
tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibit chondrogenesis by human
mesenchymal stem cells through NF-kappaB-dependent path-
ways. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;60(3):801–812.
63. Shakibaei M, Schulze-Tanzil G, John T, Mobasheri A. Cur-
cumin protects human chondrocytes from IL-l1beta-induced
inhibition of collagen type II and beta1-integrin expression and
activation of caspase-3: an immunomorphological study. Ann
Anat. 2005;187(5–6):487–497.
64. Simkin PA. Synovial perfusion and synovial fluid solutes. Ann
Rheum Dis. 1995;54(5):424–428.
65. Simkin PA, Bassett JE, Koh EM. Synovial perfusion in the
human knee: a methodologic analysis. Semin Arthritis Rheum.
1995;25(1):56–66.
66. Delgado D, Garate A, Vincent H, et al. Current concepts in
intraosseous Platelet-Rich Plasma injections for knee osteoar-
thritis. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2019;10(1):36–41.
67. Sundaram K, Vargas-Hernandez JS, Sanchez TR, et al. Are sub-
chondral intraosseous injections effective and safe for the treat-
ment of knee osteoarthritis? A systematic review. J Knee Surg.
2019;32(11):1046–1057.
68. Benjamin M, Evans EJ. Fibrocartilage. J Anat. 1990;171:1–15.
69. Raj PP. Intervertebral disc: anatomy-physiology-pathophysiol-
ogy-treatment. Pain Pract. 2008;8(1):18–44.
70. Inoue H. Three-dimensional architecture of lumbar interverte-
bral discs. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1981;6(2):139–146.
71. Marchand F, Ahmed AM. Investigation of the laminate structure
of lumbar disc anulus fibrosus. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1990;15(5):
402–410.
72. Buckwalter JA. Aging and degeneration of the human interver-
tebral disc. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20(11):1307–1314.
73. Lyons G, Eisenstein SM, Sweet MB. Biochemical changes
in intervertebral disc degeneration. Biochim Biophys Acta.
1981;673(4):443–453.
74. Antoniou J, Steffen T, Nelson F, et al. The human lumbar inter-
vertebral disc: evidence for changes in the biosynthesis and dena-
turation of the extracellular matrix with growth, maturation,
ageing, and degeneration. J Clin Invest. 1996;98(4):996–1003.
75. Hollander AP, Heathfield TF, Liu JJ, et al. Enhanced denatur-
ation of the alpha (II) chains of type-II collagen in normal adult
human intervertebral discs compared with femoral articular car-
tilage. J Orthop Res. 1996;14(1):61–66.
76. Frobin W, Brinckmann P, Kramer M, Hartwig E. Height of
lumbar discs measured from radiographs compared with degen-
eration and height classified from MR images. Eur Radiol.
2001;11(2):263–269.
12 SEC T I O N I Introduction
77. Adams MA, McNally DS, Dolan P. ‘Stress’ distributions inside
intervertebral discs. The effects of age and degeneration. J Bone
Joint Surg Br. 1996;78(6):965–972.
78. De Geer CM. Intervertebral disk nutrients and transport mech-
anisms in relation to disk degeneration: a narrative literature
review. J Chiropr Med. 2018;17(2):97–105.
79. Monfett M, Harrison J, Boachie-Adjei K, Lutz G. Intradiscal
platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for discogenic low back
pain: an update. Int Orthop. 2016;40(6):1321–1328.
80. Arnoczky SP, Warren RF. Microvasculature of the human
meniscus. Am J Sports Med. 1982;10(2):90–95.
81. Johnson D, Weiss B. Meniscal repair using the inside-out suture
technique. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 2012;20(2):68–76.
82. Melrose J, Smith S, Cake M, Read R, Whitelock J. Comparative
spatial and temporal localisation of perlecan, aggrecan and type
I, II and IV collagen in the ovine meniscus: an ageing study.
Histochem Cell Biol. 2005;124(3–4):225–235.
83. Cheung HS. Distribution of type I, II, III and V in the pep-
sin solubilized collagens in bovine menisci. Connect Tissue Res.
1987;16(4):343–356.
84. Muhammad H, Schminke B, Bode C, et al. Human migratory
meniscus progenitor cells are controlled via the TGF-beta path-
way. Stem Cell Reports. 2014;3(5):789–803.
85. Blackmore SA, McGee Jr AW, Gladstone JN, Strauss EJ, David-
son PA, Jazrawi LM. The management of meniscal pathology:
from partial meniscectomy to transplantation. Instr Course Lect.
2015;64:511–520.
86. Seol D, Zhou C, Brouillette MJ, et al. Characteristics of menis-
cus progenitor cells migrated from injured meniscus. J Orthop
Res. 2017;35(9):1966–1972.
87. Osawa A, Harner CD, Gharaibeh B, et al. The use of blood
vessel-derived stem cells for meniscal regeneration and repair.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45(5):813–823.
88. Longo UG, Campi S, Romeo G, Spiezia F, Maffulli N, Denaro
V. Biological strategies to enhance healing of the avascular area
of the meniscus. Stem Cells Int. 2012;2012:528359.
89. Pittenger MF, Mackay AM, Beck SC, et al. Multilineage
potential of adult human mesenchymal stem cells. Science.
1999;284(5411):143–147.
90. Taichman RS. Blood and bone: two tissues whose fates are
intertwined to create the hematopoietic stem-cell niche. Blood.
2005;105(7):2631–2639.
91. Rho JY, Kuhn-Spearing L, Zioupos P. Mechanical properties and the
hierarchical structure of bone. Med Eng Phys. 1998;20(2):92–102.
92. MacMahon P, Eustace SJ. General principles. Semin Musculo-
skelet Radiol. 2006;10(4):243–248.
93. Al-Rekabi Z, Fura AM, Juhlin I, Yassin A, Popowics TE,
Sniadecki NJ. Hyaluronan-CD44 interactions mediate con-
tractility and migration in periodontal ligament cells. Cell Adh
Migr. 2019;13(1):138–150.
94. Ritchie RO. How does human bone resist fracture? Ann N Y
Acad Sci. 2010;1192:72–80.
95. Unal M, Creecy A, Nyman JS. The role of matrix composi-
tion in the mechanical behavior of bone. Curr Osteoporos Rep.
2018;16(3):205–215.
96. Clarke B. Normal bone anatomy and physiology. Clin J Am Soc
Nephrol. 2008;3 suppl 3(suppl 3):S131–S139.
97. Wohl GR, Boyd SK, Judex S, Zernicke RF. Functional
adaptation of bone to exercise and injury. J Sci Med Sport.
2000;3(3):313–324.
98. Burr DB. Targeted and nontargeted remodeling. Bone.
2002;30(1):2–4.
99. Parfitt AM. Targeted and nontargeted bone remodeling: rela-
tionship to basic multicellular unit origination and progression.
Bone. 2002;30(1):5–7.
100. Teitelbaum SL, Abu-Amer Y, Ross FP. Molecular mechanisms
of bone resorption. J Cell Biochem. 1995;59(1):1–10.
101. Dalle Carbonare L, Valenti MT, Bertoldo F, et al. Bone microar-
chitecture evaluated by histomorphometry. Micron. 2005;36(7–
8):609–616.
102. Calori GM, Mazza EL, Mazzola S, et al. Non-unions. Clin Cases
Miner Bone Metab. 2017;14(2):186–188.
103. Roffi A, Di Matteo B, Krishnakumar GS, Kon E, Filardo G.
Platelet-rich plasma for the treatment of bone defects: from pre-
clinical rational to evidence in the clinical practice. A systematic
review. Int Orthop. 2017;41(2):221–237.
104. Ghaffarpasand F, Dehghankhalili M, Shahrezaei M. Plate-
let rich plasma for traumatic non-union fractures: a novel but
controversial bone regeneration strategy. Bull Emerg Trauma.
2013;1(3):99–101.
105. Wei LC, Lei GH, Sheng PY, et al. Efficacy of platelet-rich
plasma combined with allograft bone in the management of
displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures: a prospective cohort
study. J Orthop Res. 2012;30(10):1570–1576.
106. Ho-Shui-Ling A, Bolander J, Rustom LE, Johnson AW, Luyten
FP, Picart C. Bone regeneration strategies: engineered scaffolds,
bioactive molecules and stem cells current stage and future per-
spectives. Biomaterials. 2018;180:143–162.
107. Lafforgue P. Pathophysiology and natural history of avascular
necrosis of bone. Joint Bone Spine. 2006;73(5):500–507.
108. Guerado E, Caso E. The physiopathology of avascular necrosis of
the femoral head: an update. Injury. 2016;47(suppl 6):S16–s26.
109. Han J, Gao F, Li Y, et al. The use of platelet-rich plasma for
the treatment of osteonecrosis of the femoral head: a systematic
review. BioMed Res Int. 2020;2020:2642439.
110. Li R, Lin QX, Liang XZ, et al. Stem cell therapy for treating
osteonecrosis of the femoral head: from clinical applications to
related basic research. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2018;9(1):291.
111. Jessen KR. Glial cells. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2004;36(10):1861–
1867.
112. Feltri ML, Poitelon Y, Previtali SC. How Schwann cells sort
axons: new concepts. Neuroscientist. 2016;22(3):252–265.
113. Nave KA, Werner HB. Myelination of the nervous sys-
tem: mechanisms and functions. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol.
2014;30:503–533.
114. Thomas PK. The connective tissue of peripheral nerve: an elec-
tron microscope study. J Anat. 1963;97(Pt 1):35–44.
115. Cojocaru IM, Cojocaru M, Silosi I, Vrabie CD. Peripheral ner-
vous system manifestations in systemic autoimmune diseases.
Maedica (Buchar). 2014;9(3):289–294.
116. Sampaio L, Silva LG, Terroso G, Nadais G, Mariz E, Ventura F.
Vasculitic neuropathy. Acta Reumatol Port. 2011;36(2):102–109.
117. de Freitas MR. Infectious neuropathy. Curr Opin Neurol.
2007;20(5):548–552.
118. Eggermann K, Gess B, Häusler M, Weis J, Hahn A, Kurth I.
Hereditary neuropathies. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2018;115(6):91–97.
119. Weis S, Büttner A. Nutritional and systemic metabolic disor-
ders. Handb Clin Neurol. 2017;145:167–173.
120. Vinik A, Casellini C, Nevoret ML. Diabetic neuropathies. In:
Feingold KR, Anawalt B, Boyce A, et al., eds. Endotext. South
Dartmouth (MA). MDText.com, Inc. Copyright © 2000-2020,
MDText.com, Inc.; 2000.
121. Weimer LH, Sachdev N. Update on medication-induced periph-
eral neuropathy. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2009;9(1):69–75.
 CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Interventional Orthopedics and Review of the Pathophysiology of Orthopedic Conditions
122. Pratt RW, Weimer LH. Medication and toxin-induced periph-
eral neuropathy. Semin Neurol. 2005;25(2):204–216.
123. Menorca RM, Fussell TS, Elfar JC. Nerve physiology: mecha-
nisms of injury and recovery. Hand Clin. 2013;29(3):317–330.
124. Sunderland S. A classification of peripheral nerve injuries pro-
ducing loss of function. Brain. 1951;74(4):491–516.
125. Seddon HJ, Medawar PB, Smith H. Rate of regeneration of
peripheral nerves in man. J Physiol. 1943;102(2):191–215.
126. Seddon HJ. A classification of nerve injuries. Br Med J.
1942;2(4260):237–239.
127. Shiri R. The prevalence and incidence of carpal tunnel syn-
drome in US working populations. Scand J Work Environ
Health. 2014;40(1):101–102.
128. Bennett GJ, Xie YK. A peripheral mononeuropathy in rat that
produces disorders of pain sensation like those seen in man.
Pain. 1988;33(1):87–107.
129. Liu ZY, Chen ZB, Chen JH. A novel chronic nerve compres-
sion model in the rat. Neural Regen Res. 2018;13(8):1477–1485.
130. O’Brien JP, Mackinnon SE, MacLean AR, Hudson AR, Dellon
AL, Hunter DA. A model of chronic nerve compression in the
rat. Ann Plast Surg. 1987;19(5):430–435.
131. Mackinnon SE, Dellon AL, Hudson AR, Hunter DA. Chronic
nerve compression—an experimental model in the rat. Ann
Plast Surg. 1984;13(2):112–120.
132. Gupta R, Steward O. Chronic nerve compression induces con-
current apoptosis and proliferation of Schwann cells. J Comp
Neurol. 2003;461(2):174–186.
133. Pham K, Gupta R. Understanding the mechanisms of
entrapment neuropathies. Review article. Neurosurg Focus.
2009;26(2):E7.
134. Tapadia M, Mozaffar T, Gupta R. Compressive neuropathies
of the upper extremity: update on pathophysiology, clas-
sification, and electrodiagnostic findings. J Hand Surg Am.
2010;35(4):668–677.
135. Rydevik B, Lundborg G, Bagge U. Effects of graded compres-
sion on intraneural blood blow. An in vivo study on rabbit tibial
nerve. J Hand Surg Am. 1981;6(1):3–12.
136. Mackinnon SE. Pathophysiology of nerve compression. Hand
Clin. 2002;18(2):231–241.
137. Mackinnon SE, Dellon AL, Hudson AR, Hunter DA. Chronic
human nerve compression—a histological assessment. Neuro-
pathol Appl Neurobiol. 1986;12(6):547–565.
138. Ludwin SK, Maitland M. Long-term remyelination fails to
reconstitute normal thickness of central myelin sheaths. J Neurol
Sci. 1984;64(2):193–198.
139. Trescot A, Brown M. Peripheral nerve entrapment, hydrodis-
section, and neural regenerative strategies. Tech Reg Anesth Pain
Manag. 2015;19(1):85–93.
140. Marshall S, Tardif G, Ashworth N. Local corticosteroid injec-
tion for carpal tunnel syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.
2007;(2):Cd001554.
141. Huisstede BM, Hoogvliet P, Randsdorp MS, Glerum S, van
Middelkoop M, Koes BW. Carpal tunnel syndrome. Part I:
effectiveness of nonsurgical treatments—a systematic review.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(7):981–1004.
142. Evers S, Bryan AJ, Sanders TL, Gunderson T, Gelfman R, Ama-
dio PC. Influence of injection volume on rate of subsequent
intervention in carpal tunnel syndrome over 1-year follow-up. J
Hand Surg Am. 2018;43(6):537–544.
143. Cass SP. Ultrasound-guided nerve hydrodissection: what is it?
A review of the literature. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2016;15(1):
20–22.
13
144. Catapano M, Catapano J, Borschel G, Alavinia SM, Robinson
LR, Mittal N. Effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma injections for
nonsurgical management of carpal tunnel syndrome: a system-
atic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020;101(5):897–906.
145. Ducic I, Endara M, Al-Attar A, Quadri H. Minimally invasive
peripheral nerve surgery: a short scar technique. Microsurgery.
2010;30(8):622–626.
146. Exeter D, Connell DA. Skeletal muscle: functional anatomy and
pathophysiology. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 2010;14(2):97–105.
147. Squire J. Special issue: the actin-myosin interaction in muscle:
background and overview. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(22).
148. Bottinelli R, Reggiani C. Human skeletal muscle fibres: molecu-
lar and functional diversity. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2000;73(2–
4):195–262.
149. Ehrhardt J, Morgan J. Regenerative capacity of skeletal muscle.
Curr Opin Neurol. 2005;18(5):548–553.
150. Chellini F, Tani A, Zecchi-Orlandini S, Sassoli C. Influence of
platelet-rich and platelet-poor plasma on endogenous mecha-
nisms of skeletal muscle repair/regeneration. Int J Mol Sci.
2019;20(3).
151. Turner NJ, Badylak SF. Regeneration of skeletal muscle. Cell
Tissue Res. 2012;347(3):759–774.
152. Tidball JG. Mechanisms of muscle injury, repair, and regenera-
tion. Compr Physiol. 2011;1(4):2029–2062.
153. Liu J, Saul D, Böker KO, Ernst J, Lehman W, Schilling AF.
Current methods for skeletal muscle tissue repair and regenera-
tion. BioMed Res Int. 2018;2018:1984879.
154. Rosenberg IH. Sarcopenia: origins and clinical relevance. J
Nutr. 1997;127(suppl 5):990s–991s.
155. Miroshnychenko O, Chang WT, Dragoo JL. The use of
platelet-rich and platelet-poor plasma to enhance differentia-
tion of skeletal myoblasts: implications for the use of autolo-
gous blood products for muscle regeneration. Am J Sports Med.
2017;45(4):945–953.
156. Huard J, Li Y, Fu FH. Muscle injuries and repair: current trends
in research. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84(5):822–832.
157. Järvinen TA, Järvinen TL, Kääriäinen M, Kalimo H, Järvinen
M. Muscle injuries: biology and treatment. Am J Sports Med.
2005;33(5):745–764.
158. Garrett Jr WE, Seaber AV, Boswick J, Urbaniak JR, Goldner JL.
Recovery of skeletal muscle after laceration and repair. J Hand
Surg Am. 1984;9(5):683–692.
159. Hurme T, Kalimo H. Activation of myogenic precursor
cells after muscle injury. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1992;24(2):
197–205.
160. Allen RE, Boxhorn LK. Inhibition of skeletal muscle satellite
cell differentiation by transforming growth factor-beta. J Cell
Physiol. 1987;133(3):567–572.
161. Liu D, Black BL, Derynck R. TGF-beta inhibits muscle differ-
entiation through functional repression of myogenic transcrip-
tion factors by Smad3. Genes Dev. 2001;15(22):2950–2966.
162. Mendias CL, Gumucio JP, Davis ME, Bromley CW, Davis CS,
Brooks SV. Transforming growth factor-beta induces skeletal
muscle atrophy and fibrosis through the induction of atrogin-1
and scleraxis. Muscle Nerve. 2012;45(1):55–59.
163. Barrett SL, Nickerson DS. Nerve decompression surgery can
reverse neuropathy of the foot pain practice management.
https://www.practicalpainmanagement.com/pain/neuropathic/
diabetic-neuropathy/nerve-decompression-surgery-can-reverse--
neuropathy-foot. Published 2016. Updated April 15, 2016.
Accessed May 25, 2020
2
Ultrasound Basics
M ATTHEW SHERRIER, ALLISON N. SCHROEDER,
KENTARO ONISHI, AND DANIEL LUEDERS
Introduction
Ultrasound guidance can be applied to assist in a multitude
of interventional orthopedic procedures. This chapter pro-
vides a review of ultrasound physics, image optimization,
common artifacts, and fundamentals of ultrasound-guided
interventions.
Ultrasound Principles
Diagnostic ultrasound knowledge complements interven-
tional ultrasound skills. Understanding ultrasound phys-
ics, image optimization, and artifacts are key components
of diagnostic ultrasound. Mastery of diagnostic ultrasound
serves as the foundation for safe and effective ultrasound-
guided interventions. Awareness of sonographic artifacts
and why these occur is imperative to distinguish those arti-
facts from pathology and to effectively prevent or mitigate
artifacts that could make an intervention unsafe or more
challenging.
Ultrasound Physics
A comprehensive description of the pertinent physics of
ultrasound mechanics and the resulting imaging output is
beyond the scope of this chapter. Briefly, electric current is
transmitted from a wall-plug or an affixed battery through
the ultrasound processor and, ultimately, to the ultrasound
transducer. The head of an ultrasound transducer contains
an array of piezoelectric crystals, which convert the electric
current into pulses of ultrasonic waves. The piezoelectric
crystal array within a transducer head can vary in the align-
ment, shape, thickness, and width, which influence quality
of spatial resolution, the depth of ultrasound wave penetra-
tion, and signal-to-noise ratio. The transducer is coupled
to the skin of the patient through a sonoconductive gel for
sound waves to conduct through the target tissue.
Once the sound wave travels through patient’s skin, the
energy of the waves can be reflected by a tissue, absorbed
by a tissue, or penetrate through a tissue. More dense tis-
sues will reflect more ultrasound energy, and less dense
14
tissues will permit greater penetration of ultrasound energy.
As the sound waves penetrate deeper, energy is lost to
refracted and absorbed sound waves and the ultrasound
signal becomes attenuated or weaker in strength. Reflected
sound waves travel retrograde to return to the transducer
where they interact with the piezoelectric crystal array of
the transducer head. Those reflected sound waves are con-
verted back to an electrical signal, by a reverse piezoelectric
effect, and are transmitted to the central processor of the
ultrasound machine. The processor knows the pulse veloc-
ity of the anterograde ultrasound waves that were trans-
mitted and can calculate the depth of reflecting structures
from the measured echo time to create an ultrasound image.
Bright, hyperechogenic-appearing structures result from
the reflection of greater amounts of ultrasound energy by
more dense tissues, which have higher impedance, such as
bone. Conversely, dark, hypoechogenic-appearing struc-
tures result from the reflection of less amount of ultrasound
energy by less dense tissues with lower impedance, such as
fibrocartilage.
Image Optimization
Image optimization requires selection of the most appro-
priate ultrasound transducer and skillful manipulation of
ultrasound probe and ultrasound machine settings such as
depth, focal zone number and location, gain, and dynamic
range. This is imperative to best visualize the targeted struc-
ture, to permit the most complete visualization of the needle
or tool, and to ensure the safety and avoidance of neurovas-
cular structures.
Transducer Selection
Ultrasound transducers vary by the range of ultrasound fre-
quencies (labeled on the body of the transducer in megahertz
[MHz]) that they transmit and the size of the transducer
head footprint (Fig. 2.1). In general, a linear array trans-
ducer can transmit higher-frequency, lower-amplitude
ultrasound waves. The higher-frequency transducer will
transmit more ultrasound waves and thus receive more
returning ultrasound waves, facilitating the production of

A B C sound waves and processing power so as to produce the best
• Fig. 2.1 Common Transducers From left to right, (A) 8-1 MHz cur-
vilinear array transducer, (B) 24-8 MHz linear array transducer, and (C)
22-8 MHz small-footprint linear array transducer (commonly referred to
as “hockey-stick” transducer).
greater detail and spatial resolution in the image produced.
However, the lower-amplitude waves have less energy and
will become attenuated and lose strength more quickly,
so deeper objects are not as well visualized. In contrast, a
curvilinear array transducer will transmit lower-frequency,
higher-amplitude waves. The lower-frequency transducer
will transmit fewer ultrasound waves, but those waves will
have a higher amplitude and more energy; thus they are less
susceptible to attenuation as they penetrate to deeper tis-
sues. As a result, more sound waves return from deeper tis-
sues and deeper objects are better visualized, but there is less
detail and spatial resolution of superficial tissues.
In general, a lower-frequency curvilinear array transducer
is preferable for tissues targeted at 4 to 5 cm and deeper and
a higher-frequency linear array transducer will be preferable
for tissues more superficial than that. The convex transmis-
sion of ultrasound waves from a curvilinear array transducer
can improve visualization of a needle directed at a steep
angle. The curvilinear array directs more ultrasound waves
perpendicular to that needle that are reflected at an angle of
incidence that facilitates return to the transducer, improv-
ing needle visualization. This same benefit can be obtained
in beam-steering mode on linear array transducers, which is
described later in this chapter.
Specialized small-footprint linear array transducers (com-
monly referred to as “hockey-stick” transducers because of
their shape) will have a smaller footprint of approximately
15 to 20 mm (vs. 45+ mm for a standard linear transducer),
which can facilitate improved skin contact and beam cou-
pling on the sharp contours of the hands and feet. The
smaller footprint also decreases the size of the field of view,
which must also be considered when performing interven-
tional procedures.
Knobology
The layout of knobs, switches, and touch screen interfaces
will vary by ultrasound platform manufacturer and by
CHAPTER 2 Ultrasound Basics 15
different models within a manufacturer’s range of platforms.
It is essential for each individual operator to familiarize him-
self or herself with the layout of the control panel of each
platform that might be used. The depth of the ultrasound
image should be adjusted, often by turning a dial or adjust-
ing a switch up or down, to ensure that the targeted struc-
ture and any “at-risk” structures are captured but also that
the image does not have unnecessary depth beyond those
structures (Fig. 2.2).
Focal zone depth can be adjusted and their number
increased or decreased on most platforms. Focal zones repre-
sent the narrowest segments of the ultrasound beam where
the ultrasound processor is directed to optimize the ultra-
temporal and spatial resolution (Fig. 2.3). The number and
positioning of focal zones should be modified according to
the depth and size of the targeted structure. Minimization
of the number of focal zones reduces processing demands
by reducing the frame rate and improves image resolution.
Gain increases or decreases the overall brightness of
the raw returned echoes and is most often adjusted and
increased to account for beam attenuation resulting in
image hypoechogenicity. Increasing or decreasing gain with
the dial or switch does so uniformly and modifies the entire
image. Time gain compensation (TGC) involves the indi-
vidual manipulation of one of a vertically oriented stack of
sliding switches which correlate to different image depths.
Modification of the TGC permits focal manipulation of
gain at specific image depths (Fig. 2.4). Typically, the TGC
is used to focally increase gain in the far field to account for
beam attenuation and relatively hypoechogenic imaging at
increasing depths.
Sonographic Appearance of Normal
Structures
An ultrasound image is produced by the return and process-
ing of ultrasound waves by the transducer, which is affected
by how the ultrasound waves penetrate, reflect, or are
absorbed by different tissues. Different image echogenicities
represent the reflection of waves at the interface of struc-
tures of relatively different density and orientation within
a single tissue type or between different adjacent structures
(Fig. 2.5).1 The interface between structures with a wide dif-
ference in impedance (e.g., that seen between soft tissue and
bone) results in more reflected sound waves and producing a
relatively bright, or hyperechoic, structure on the ultrasound
image. Structures that are less dense or sit adjacent to a very
dense structure will reflect fewer sound waves or waves with
smaller amplitude, resulting in a less bright, or hypoecho-
genic-appearing, structure. Adjacent structures of similar
impedance are termed isoechoic to each other. Regions where
all ultrasound waves are absorbed and no echo returns to
the transducer appear black on an ultrasound image and are
termed anechoic.
Comprehensive knowledge of local and regional muscu-
loskeletal and neurovascular anatomy is essential. Tendon,
16 SEC T I O N I Introduction

A B

C
• Fig. 2.2 Poorly optimized ultrasound images of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (arrowheads) demon-
strating (A) excessive depth and (B) Suboptimal focal zone location (arrows) for such a superficial structure. (C)
Ultrasound image of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (arrowheads) with an optimized depth and focal zone.

A B
• Fig. 2.3 Ultrasound image of the anterior femoroacetabular joint in long axis with the femoral neck con-
trasting the effect of focal zone location (arrows). (A) Superficial focal zone, poorly optimized for the deep
hip joint. (B) Deep focal zone which is better optimized for visualization of deep target structure.

ligament, muscle, bone, cartilage, bursa, and peripheral
nerve have distinct sonographic appearances (Table 2.1). A
thorough understanding of the normal sonographic appear-
ance and surrounding anatomy of pertinent structures in
both short-axis and long-axis imaging planes is critical to
identify potentially at-risk structures, recognize congenital
variation or absence of a structure, and diagnose pathol-
ogy.2,3 A comprehensive description of the sonographic
appearance of pathologic tissues and anatomic variations is
beyond the scope of this text.
Sonographic Artifacts
Ultrasound imaging is inherently susceptible to image arti-
facts because the sonographic character of normal tissue can
change based on the angle of insonation of the ultrasound

A B
• Fig. 2.4Ultrasound image of the anterior femoroacetabular joint in long axis with the femoral neck dem-
onstrating image optimization through manipulation of time gain compensation (TGC) at depth. (A) dem-
onstrates neutral TGC settings, whereas (B) demonstrates increased gain at depth to better visualize the
femoral neck.
beam and the relative sonographic characteristics of adja-
cent tissues. A thorough awareness of such artifacts and an
understanding of why they occur is essential to avoid erro-
neous diagnosis of pathology and unnecessary and unpro-
ductive procedures.5 Common artifacts include anisotropy,
shadowing, posterior acoustic enhancement, posterior
reverberation, and beam-width artifact.
Anisotropy
Anisotropy is the artifactually hypoechoic or anechoic
appearance of a structure that occurs when a structure is
imaged at an angle of incidence. The angle of incidence is
the angle at which the ultrasound waves encounter the sur-
face of a structure. If the angle is perpendicular, or close to
90 degrees, more waves will be reflected back to the trans-
ducer. If the ultrasound waves are more parallel, waves will
be reflected or “scattered,” resulting in a failure of the antici-
pated ultrasound waves returning to the transducer head.
Anisotropy will occur when imaging structures in both long
and short axes. Tendons and ligaments are most susceptible,
specifically when curving around a bony prominence or
quickly changing depth to become more deep or superficial
(Fig. 2.7). Anisotropy produces an artifactually hypoechoic
appearance that can mimic pathology.
CHAPTER 2 Ultrasound Basics 17
Anisotropy can be minimized or eliminated in short-
axis visualization by angulating or “wagging the tail” of the
transducer to ensure that the ultrasound beam is perpen-
dicular to the structure (face of the probe is parallel to the
structure), approximating the angle of incidence as close to
90 degrees as possible. When visualizing a structure in long
axis, anisotropy is addressed by heel-toeing or “rocking” one
end of the transducer to ensure that the ultrasound beam
is perpendicular to the structure, again, approximating the
angle of incidence as close to 90 degrees as possible.
Posterior Acoustic Shadowing
Posterior acoustic shadowing results when ultrasound waves
are reflected or attenuated by a structure resulting in little,
to no, waves penetrating through to deeper structures (Fig.
2.8A).6 This results in a relatively hypoechoic appearance of
all tissues deep to the structure. Dense structures, such as
bone, calcifications, and foreign bodies, are most likely to
cast a posterior acoustic shadow.
Posterior Acoustic Enhancement
Posterior acoustic enhancement, or increased through-
transmission, occurs deep to structures that are hypoechoic
relative to adjacent tissues, resulting in less ultrasound beam
18 SEC T I O N I Introduction

R
U U
A B

F
F
C D
• Fig. 2.5 (A) Pronator quadratus muscle (arrowheads) in long axis shows demonstrating hypoechoic
myocytes and interspersed hyperechoic fibroadipose septae (arrows). More superficially, the wrist and
finger flexor musculature (open arrows) is demonstrated in anatomic short axis with the intramuscular
fibroadipose septae appearing as punctate hyperechogenicities. (B) Ulnar collateral ligament of the elbow
in long axis demonstrating compact fibrillar echotexture (arrowheads). (C) Patellar tendon in long axis
(arrowheads) demonstrating an even-appearing hyperechoic fibrillar echotexture. Deep to the tendon is
hypoechoic fluid within the deep infrapatellar bursa (arrows). (D) Transverse image of the femoral trochlea
demonstrating the homogeneous, hypoechoic hyaline cartilage (arrows) overlying hyperechoic cortical
bone (arrowheads). F, Femur; H, humerus; R, radius; U, ulna.

attenuation or reflection (see Fig. 2.8B). Tissues deep to the
less dense structure will appear relatively hyperechoic com-
pared with adjacent soft tissues because relatively more of
the ultrasound waves penetrate through the more superficial
and less absorptive structure to the deeper tissues.6 This arti-
fact can be used to advantageously image structures deep to
vasculature and cystic or fluid-filled structures.
Reverberation Artifacts
Reverberation appears as a series of hyperechoic, linear arti-
Visualization of Blood Flow
facts deep to dense structures and results from a series of
ultrasound wave reflections between two parallel, highly
reflective surfaces. The single reflection will be displayed at
the proper location but the artifactual late return of attenu-
ated, reflected ultrasound waves are interpreted by the
ultrasound processor as deeper, hypoechoic structures. This
commonly occurs with bone and with metal surfaces, such
as a needle or orthopedic implant (Fig. 2.9). Ring-down
artifact appears as a solid streak or series of parallel bands
which result from the resonant vibration of air bubbles.
Comet-tail artifact appears as a series of multiple closely
spaced reverberation echoes deep to a more focal or punc-
tate structure which results from sequential echoes from two
closely spaced, highly reflective interfaces.
Beam-Width Artifact
Beam-width artifact results when the ultrasound beam is too
wide relative to a small object being imaged and is similar
to volume averaging in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
For example, shadowing from a small calcification may not
be visualized due to a wide beam width. This artifact can be
eliminated by adjusting the focal zone to the level of the object
of interest or changing to a probe with a smaller footprint.
Color and power Doppler imaging detect motion toward
or away from the transducer by detecting the delay between
frequencies of the transmitted and received ultrasound
waves (Fig. 2.10).7,8 Color Doppler displays differences in
flow direction, red color representing flow toward the trans-
ducer and blue color representing flow away from the trans-
ducer. Power Doppler does not discriminate direction of
flow but is more sensitive to low flow and provides superior
detection of small vessels and slow flow rates. Power Dop-
pler is sensitive to transducer movement and susceptible to
flash artifact. Increased blood flow on Doppler imaging may
occur with greater perfusion, inflammation, and neovascu-
larization and can assist in differentiating complex fluid
 CHAPTER 2 Ultrasound Basics 19

TABLE
2.1   Distinct Sonographic Appearance of Neuromusculoskeletal Structures

Structure Appearance on Ultrasound

Tendon Linearly oriented between a muscle body and osseous insertion. Homogeneously and densely oriented
fibers produce a dense, linear hyperechoic structure in long-axis imaging with distinct superficial and
deep tenosynovial borders. In short axis, tendon appears as a regular-bordered ovoid structure with
homogeneously echogenic and sized internal tendon fibers, often referred to as a “broomstick” viewed on
end (Fig. 2.6)
Ligament Linearly oriented between two osseous structures. Ligament is composed of homogeneously and densely
oriented fibers and visualized as echogenic fibrillar fibers, which tend to be less echogenic than tendons
but echogenicity also depends on anisotropy and contrast with surrounding structures.4 Although the
echotexture of nonpathological ligaments has not been well described, they are often visualized as a
linear hyperechoic structure in long-axis imaging. In short axis, ligament will appear as a more irregularly
bordered, flattened structure
Muscle Composed of relatively hypoechoic muscle fibers and interspersed hyperechoic intramuscular stromal
connective tissue of the endomysium and perimysium. In short axis, its appearance is often referred to as a
“starry night”
Bone Densely hyperechoic relative to all surrounding tissues because of the inherent high acoustic impedance
mismatch. Cortical bone appears as a continuous, regular, brightly hyperechoic line with deep reverberation
artifact and posterior acoustic shadowing which precludes visualization of any deeper structures
Hyaline cartilage Densely and evenly hypoechoic secondary to its high water content and the high acoustic impedance
mismatch with the deep bone
Fibrocartilage Homogeneously hyperechoic relative to more superficial connective tissue or muscle. It has the same
appearance in both long- and short-axis orientations
Bursa When distended with fluid, anechoic-to-mixed-echogenic fluid and debris can fill the bursa. Firm transducer
pressure will compress and displace the fluid
Peripheral nerve Hyperechoic perineurium and endoneurium, which surrounds numerous small, round, and hypoechoic nerve
fascicles. All of this is contained within a hyperechoic epineurium, giving a “honeycomb” appearance when
visualized in short axis (see Fig. 2.6)4

R Distal

• Fig. 2.6 Transverse Ultrasound Image of Distal Volar Forearm.
Observe the “honeycomb” appearance of the median nerve in this
short-axis view (open arrows) adjacent to the more hyperechoic and
more densely packed fibrillar-appearing flexor tendons (arrowheads).
R, Radius; U, ulna.
• Fig. 2.7 The distal biceps brachii tendon (arrowheads) demonstrates
anisotropy as it descends from superficial plane parallel to the trans-
ducer (left of image) toward its distal radial insertion in a deep plane
oblique relative to the transducer (right of image).

Role for Ultrasound Guidance in

and synovitis because the former will often lack blood flow
whereas the latter demonstrates increased flow.9
Microvascular imaging mode, such as superb microvas-
cular imaging (SMI), has been demonstrated to have greater
sensitivity for the identification of microvessels at a high
frame rate.10–12 This technology facilitates detailed visual-
ization of microvessels and lower-velocity blood flow with-
out the use of contrast medium.13
Interventional Orthopedic Procedures
General indications for needle placement into or about a soft
tissue or joints include, but are not limited to, the removal
of fluid for diagnostic evaluation or symptom palliation
and the delivery of diagnostic or therapeutic agents. When
considering the use of image guidance for a procedure, one
should understand the indications and contraindications.
20 SEC T I O N I Introduction

A INFRASPINATUS TRANS B SEMIMEMBRANOSUS TRANS

• Fig. 2.8 (A) Posterior acoustic shadowing. A hyperechoic intratendinous calcification within infraspi-
natus (arrows) casts a posterior acoustic shadow, which results in an artifactually hypoechoic-appear-
ing humerus deep to the calcification (open arrows). (B) Posterior acoustic enhancement. A fluid-filled
hypoechoic parameniscal cyst (arrows) attenuates less ultrasound energy than the adjacent musculature,
which results in a relative hyperechogenic appearance of the joint capsule (open arrows) deep to the cyst.

• Fig. 2.9
Reverberation (open arrows) is seen as a series of linear reflective echoes extending deep as the
sound beam reflects back and forth between the smooth surface of the needle shaft and the transducer.

A B
• Fig. 2.10 Radial artery and veins without (A) and with (B) color Doppler.

Ultrasound affords many distinct advantages as an imaging Advantages of Ultrasound

modality for procedure guidance, but clinicians should be
able to discern when the inherent limitations of ultrasound The use of ultrasound as an imaging modality to assist in the
may make another imaging modality a safer or more effec- guidance of musculoskeletal interventions has the potential
tive tool for the procedure. to improve accuracy, efficacy, and safety when compared

TABLE   Advantages of Ultrasound Over Other
2.2 Imaging Modalities
Relative portability
Superior spatial resolution of superficial soft tissue and
neurovascular structures
Relative low cost
Continuous needle/device visualization
No exposure to ionizing radiation
No metallic artifact on imaging allows for prosthetic
imaging
with palpation guidance.14,15 When used for procedural
guidance, ultrasound also affords multiple distinct advan-
tages over x-ray, MRI, and computed tomography (CT)
that make it an ideal diagnostic and interventional imaging
tool (Table 2.2). Ultrasound can be used at the point of care
to identify tendinosis/tendinopathy, ligamentous injury,
muscular injury, bony pathology and joint pathology (i.e.,
effusion, hemarthrosis, loose body, meniscal injury). Clini-
cal evaluation, diagnostic ultrasound evaluation, and pro-
gression to an ultrasound-guided intervention are possible
to complete in a single outpatient clinic visit.
Accuracy
Injection accuracy is defined as placement of the injec-
tate or needle tip into or about the intended structure.14
There is strong evidence that image-guided injections are
more accurate than palpation-guided injections into joints
of all sizes.15 Most soft tissue and intrabursal injections
are also more accurate when performed with ultrasound
guidance.16,17
Efficacy
Assessments of the effectiveness of a procedure, whether
palpation or ultrasound guided, vary based on different
outcome measures used. For the purposes of this dis-
cussion, positive efficacy will be defined as studies that
describe a positive change in an outcome measure such
as pain, range of motion, mobility, function, or patient
satisfaction.14
One would logically anticipate improved efficacy with
more accurate injectate placement, but studies to date have
demonstrated mixed outcomes with regards to improve-
ments in efficacy with ultrasound guidance.15 Multiple
studies have demonstrated that ultrasound guidance for
musculoskeletal conditions contributes to improved efficacy
and quality of life when compared with palpation-guided
injections.18–23
One important consideration is that most studies com-
paring palpation versus ultrasound-guided corticoste-
roid injections, except cortisone, will have some systemic
effects of pain reduction no matter the specific location
of the injection.19,24 However, the mechanisms of action
CHAPTER 2 Ultrasound Basics 21
of medications other than corticosteroids, such as visco-
supplementation injections and orthobiologic agents, may
be dependent upon their accurate placement into or about
a structure or joint. More research is needed to compare
whether ultrasound guidance may improve the effectiveness
of such interventions as compared with palpation guidance.
Safety
Ultrasound guidance of an intervention affords continuous
visualization of the at-risk neurovascular structures, the tar-
get structure, and the needle or device, which can decrease
the incidence of adverse events such as hematomas/hemar-
throsis, postinjection pain, and neurovascular injuries.25,26
Indications for Use of Ultrasound-Guided
Intervention
Use of ultrasound for guidance of an injection or procedural
intervention is indicated when a palpation-guided injection
has failed to have positive therapeutic effect or when the
diagnostic or therapeutic injection depends upon precise
visualization of the pathologic structure. In procedures with
relatively high risk of injury to nearby neurovascular struc-
tures or unintended soft tissue structures, ultrasound guid-
ance can be used to avoid injury. Furthermore, ultrasound
is useful to monitor for postprocedure hematoma forma-
tion in anticoagulated patients.27,28 Another common indi-
cation for ultrasound guidance is when palpation of bony
anatomic landmarks and confident target identification are
compromised by body habitus or pannus, postsurgical or
posttraumatic changes and deformities, or deep location of
the target.
Contraindications for Use of Ultrasound-
Guided Intervention
Once the indications have been identified, contraindications
must be assessed. Similar to palpation-guided injections,
ultrasound-guided procedures should not be performed in
patients with known allergy to injectate or in the location
of an active infection, rash, or skin breakdown. Another
important contraindication is the skill limitations of the
proceduralist. Substantial training, practice, and time com-
mitment are necessary to obtain competency; one must not
perform an intervention that one does not feel comfortable
performing.
Relative contraindications include interventions on patients
with coagulopathy or who are on anticoagulation/antiplatelet
therapy, given the increased risk of bleeding complications.
Additional relative contraindications include underlying medi-
cal conditions that may be affected by the injectate, such as
diabetics who receive corticosteroid injections.
Contraindications specific to ultrasound guidance relate
to an inability to sufficiently or clearly visualize a targeted
pathologic structure because of inherent imaging limita-
tions. Specifically, ultrasound does not penetrate through
bones and other dense or metallic structures. This can
22 SEC T I O N I Introduction
preclude visualization of structures deep to bone and needle
visualization deep to bone or within an obliquely oriented
joint, such as the sacroiliac (SI) joint or lumbar facet joint.
Ultrasound Compared With Other Imaging
Modalities for Procedure Guidance
Ultrasound, MRI, CT, and fluoroscopy can each be used
to guide interventional orthopedic procedures. Relative to
other imaging modalities, ultrasound has the benefits of
improved portability, lower cost, absence of exposure to
ionizing radiation or gadolinium contrast, and unparalleled
spatial resolution of superficial soft tissue structures. Even
the largest platform-based ultrasound machine will have a
smaller footprint and is more portable than other imaging
hardware. Ultrasound can be moved between different pro-
cedure rooms, unlike other modalities which can require a
large, dedicated room and outfitting with extensive electri-
cal and computer wiring or leaded protection. Ultrasound
also affords continuous, real-time visualization of the needle
or device as it is advanced or redirected, unlike other modal-
ities which require repeating a cycle of advancing a needle or
device, taking an image, and image analysis.
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
MRI is often the imaging reference standard for musculoskele-
tal disorders because of its unparalleled global detail of osseous,
articular, and musculotendinous structures. When compared
with MRI, ultrasound is more accessible at the point-of-care,
less expensive, and more cost-effective, has superior superficial
spatial resolution, and provides dynamic anatomic detail in
real time.29–31 To the authors’ knowledge, there are no stud-
ies that directly compare MRI versus ultrasound guidance for
procedures performed on the musculoskeletal system.
Computed Tomography
CT provides cross-sectional imaging of bone, soft tissues,
and blood vessels, making it a useful modality for proce-
dural guidance. Limitations of CT relative to ultrasound
are its requirement of a specialized and dedicated room for
large machinery, exposure of the operator, staff, and patient
to ionizing radiation, and lack of real-time visualization of
the needle or device. CT guidance is most commonly used
for spinal injections and implements cycles of needle/device
advancement, image capture, and image analysis to confirm
accurate needle/device placement and medication delivery;
it does not allow for continuous real-time visualization of
the needle or device that is possible with ultrasound. The
cycle of needle/device advancement and image gathering
used with CT guidance increases the length of time for the
intervention and comparison studies have been mixed as to
whether CT or ultrasound is more time efficient for image
guidance for facet joint injections.29,30
Fluoroscopy
Fluoroscopy uses radiography to visualize detailed bony
anatomy. However, relative to ultrasound, fluoroscopy
exposes the operator, staff, and patient to ionizing radiation,
requires contrast to confirm needle placement and injectate
flow, and is much less portable. Fluoroscopy provides no
detail of neurovascular structures, musculature, and ten-
dons. Relative to ultrasound, fluoroscopy does afford supe-
rior visualization deep to and between bony prominences,
and allows confirmation of placement with flow of injected
radiopaque contrast into such joints.
Axial injections are believed to be safer and more effective
when performed with fluoroscopic guidance compared with
ultrasound guidance. However, in recent years, this opinion
has been challenged in the literature. Ultrasound-guided
cervical medial branch blocks take less time to perform
and use fewer needle passes with no difference in preblock
and postblock pain scores or complication rate when com-
pared with fluoroscopic guidance.31,32 In the lumbar spine,
a recent systematic review of nine randomized controlled
trials comparing ultrasound to fluoroscopic guidance for
the management of lower back pain, including transforam-
inal and caudal steroid injections, found no difference in
pain reduction, procedure time, complications and adverse
events, patient satisfaction, or postprocedure opioid con-
sumption.33 These findings are similar to those reported in
a meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized lumbar
facet joint injections, which did not find significant differ-
ences in pain or function in the ultrasound-guided cohorts
when compared to fluoroscopy.34 Although the research for
ultrasound guidance is promising, the accuracy and safety
of fluoroscopy-guided neuraxial injections is well estab-
lished and currently remains the standard of care for axial
injections.
In addition to spine procedures, fluoroscopy has tradi-
tionally been the imaging modality of choice for SI joint
injections.35–37 Ultrasound has been demonstrated to have
similar accuracy and improvements in pain scores and dis-
ability measures when compared with fluoroscopy for SI
joint injections,38 although some studies show superior accu-
racy of fluoroscopy when compared with ultrasound.36,39
Fluoroscopic guidance has historically been the imaging
modality of choice for intra-articular hip joint injections
and aspirations, but a growing body of evidence demon-
strates equivalent accuracy, efficacy, and decreased cost with
ultrasound guidance.40–44 Ultrasound-guided intra-articular
hip injections are less painful than fluoroscopically guided
injections, which is likely attributable to its ability to visual-
ize and to avoid painful contact or injury to periarticular
structures.45
Cost
There is an 8% reduction in cost per patient per year and a
33% reduction in cost per responder per year with the use
of ultrasound guidance compared with palpation guidance
for intra-articular injections in patients with inflammatory
arthritis.23 In the knee joint specifically, ultrasound guid-
ance achieves a 13% reduction in cost per patient per year
and a 58% reduction in cost per responder per year when
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Cradle. In general, that part of the carriage which houses
the recoil and counter-recoil mechanisms.
Elevating Mechanism. The device used to elevate the
gun through a vertical arc in order to give the gun an
elevation corresponding to the desired range at which
the piece is to be fired.
Fire Control Equipment. Those instruments used to
compute firing data, observe and correct the fire, such
as B. C. Telescopes, Aiming Circles, Range Finders,
etc.
Firing Mechanism. A device located in the breechblock
for exploding the primer and thus causing the ignition
of the powder charge.
Fuze. That part of the round which is fastened to the point
or to the base of the projectile and causes the latter to
be detonated or exploded near the time or the place
desired.
Fuze Setter. A device used to set time fuzes in such a
manner that shrapnel or shell will burst at or near the
desired height in air.
Gun. A metallic tube from which projectiles are hurled by
gases generated from the ignited powder. In general,
all fire arms; but in Field Artillery terms, comparatively
long-barreled weapons using relatively high muzzle
velocity in contra-distinction to the howitzers and
mortars.
Howitzer. A weapon which differs from a gun in that for
the same caliber it uses a shorter tube, lower muzzle
velocity and generally a more curved trajectory. From
two to seven varying strengths of propelling charges
may be used in the howitzer. This gives it selective
angles of fall, and allows the howitzer to reach targets
that are hidden from the flat trajectories of guns.
Initial Velocity. The speed with which the projectile first
moves.
Limber. A two-wheeled carriage which is sometimes used
to carry an ammunition chest and always used to
support the weight of the trail of the piece or caisson.
It adds the other two wheels to make a four-wheeled
vehicle.
Materiel. A term used in the Field Artillery in contra-
distinction to Personnel.
Mortar. A weapon using for the same caliber, a barrel
much shorter than the corresponding howitzer. Used
at short ranges with extreme steep angles of fall to
reach highly defiladed targets.
Muzzle. The front end of the bore.
Muzzle Velocity. Speed or velocity of the projectile
measured as it leaves the muzzle.
Ogive. The rounded shoulder of the projectile.
Ordnance. Arms, ammunition, and their accessories.
Piece. A fire arm, small or large.
Primer. Device used to insure ignition of the propelling
charge.
Projectile. The effect-producing part of the round. The
bullet-like form which is thrown toward the target.
Quadrant, gunners. A device for measuring angles of
elevation.
Recoil Mechanism. That part of the piece which checks
the recoil—or kick—that always occurs when a piece
is fired. It generally includes the counter-recoil
mechanism which restores the tube “into battery” after
it has fired.
Rifle. A gun. A weapon with a comparatively long barrel
and high muzzle velocity. Rifles under 6 inches
seldom use over two different charges. Term used in
contrast to Howitzer or Mortar.
Rifling. The lands and grooves in the bore of the piece
which imparts to the projectile during its passage
through the bore, the rotary motion that increases
accuracy and range.
Round. Consists of the primer, cartridge case or powder
bags, projectile and fuze. For light Field Artillery the
round weighs about 18 lbs and the projectile about
15.
Shell. A projectile which secures its effect by the force of
its detonation, the bursting of its walls, and the
fragmentation and velocity of the fragments. Also
used as a gas carrier.
Shrapnel. A projectile which secures its effect by the
expulsion in the air of lead balls with shot-gun like
effect.
Trail. That part of the piece which extends from the axle to
the rear and transmits the force of recoil to the ground
through the trail spade. Usually supports the elevating
and traversing mechanisms.
Traversing Mechanism. A device used to give the piece
direction by moving it through a horizontal arc.
 CHAPTER II
HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF MATERIEL.

In taking up the study of materiel, the Field Artillery student should

know something of the history and development of ordnance and the
reasons for the various changes which have taken place from time to
time.
The sole use of a gun is to throw a projectile. The earliest
projectile was a stone thrown by the hand and arm of man—either in
an attack upon an enemy or upon a beast that was being hunted for
food. Both of these uses of thrown projectiles persist to this day, and,
during all time, from prehistoric days until the present, every man
who has had a missile to throw has steadily sought for a longer
range and a heavier projectile.
In ancient times the man who could throw the heaviest stone the
longest distance was the most powerfully armed. During the Biblical
battle between David and Goliath, the arm of David was
strengthened and lengthened by a leather sling of a very simple
construction. Much practice had given the youthful shepherd
muscular strength and direction, and his stronger arm and straighter
aim gave him power to overcome his more heavily armed adversary.
Projectile-throwing machines were developed after the fashion of a
crossbow mounted upon a small wooden carriage which usually was
a hollowed trough open on top and upon which a stone was laid. The
thong of the crossbow was drawn by a powerful screw operated by
man power, and the crossbow arrangement when released would
throw a stone weighing many pounds quite a distance over the walls
of a besieged city or from such wall into the camps or ranks of the
besiegers. This again was an attempt by mechanical means to
develop and strengthen and lengthen the stroke of the arm and the
weight of the projectile. The Bible states that King Usia (809-757 B.
C.) placed types of artillery on the walls of Jerusalem. The Romans
used it in the Punic Wars. The Alexandrian technicians established
scientific rules for the construction of early weapons. Athenaeus
reports catapults having a range of 656 meters and that the gigantic
siege tower at Rhodes successfully resisted stone projectiles
weighing 176 pounds.
References to explosives are to be found in works as old as
Moses. Archimedes is said by Plutarch to have “cast huge stones
from his machines with a great noise;” Caligua is said by Dion
Cassius to have had machines which “imitated thunder and lightning
and emitted stones;” and Marcus Graecus in the eighth century gives
a receipt of one pound of sulphur, two of willow charcoal and six of
saltpetre, for the discharge of what we should call a rocket.
The use of Greek fire was understood as early as the sixth
century, but powder was earliest used in China, perhaps a thousand
years before Christ, and was introduced to European notice by the
Saracens.
From the discovery of gunpowder by the English monk Bacon in
1248, sixty-five years elapsed before a Franciscan monk produced
the first gun in Germany, about 1313. The first guns were of a small
breech-loading type, supported in front by crossed sticks and
anchored by a spike at the breech. Later these guns were fastened
to cradles, the latter being mounted on sleighs, and finally, in 1376,
the Venetians produced the first wheel mounts, which had become
common by 1453, when the Turks took Constantinople.
The ancient carriages were remarkable because of the fact that in
general design they embodied the same principals which are
included in the field carriages of to-day. One example from the
fifteenth century shows a breech-loading gun mounted in a cradle
supported by trunnions on the forward extension of the trail over the
axle. The cradle was elevated by a pin-and-arc arrangement,
supported on the trail. The axle supported by wheels passes through
the trail to the rear of and below the cradle trunnion support and in
front of the point of attachment of the elevating arc.
 Field guns fell into disuse about 1525 with the introduction of
musketry, and remained so until 1631, when Gustavus Adolphus
gave artillery its true position on the battlefield.
Swedish artillery reigned supreme in the early part of the
seventeenth century. Gustavus introduced marked changes by
making the guns and the carriages lighter and handier, and by
adapting their movements to those of the other arms and to the
requirements of the battlefield. In this, as in all his military efforts, his
motto was mobility and rapidity of fire.
In 1624 Gustavus had all his old types of guns recast into newer
models and the following year he himself contrived a gun which
three men and one horse could maneuvre to good effect. It was an
iron three and four pounder with a cartridge weighing less than a
pound and consisting of a charge held in a thin wooden case wired
to a ball. This was the first artillery cartridge, the original fixed
ammunition. The gun was afterwards used in other European armies
and known as the “piece Suedoise.” Not only had it the advantage of
lesser weight but its cartridge was always ready to fire and it could
be fired eight times to the six times of the infantry musket of that day.
In the wars against the Poles, Gustavus employed with profit the
so-called leather cannon, a fact which shows how lacking the times
were in artillery power. These guns were invented in the early 1620s
by a Colonel Wurmbrandt, and consisted of a thin copper tube
reinforced by iron bands and rings, then bound with rope set in
cement, the whole covered with sole leather. The tube was made to
screw in and out because it grew heated by from eight to twelve
charges and had to be cooled. The gun carriage was made of two
planks of oak. The gun without the carriage weighed about ninety
pounds and was fired with a light charge. They were used during
1628-29 and then gave way for four pounder cast-iron guns which
remained in common usage in Europe until artillery was reorganized
by Frederick.
Gustavus’ batteries excited universal admiration. Grape and
canister were generally employed in the field guns and round shot
only in the siege guns. Artillery was used massed or in groups and
also with regiments of foot soldiers. Gustavus was probably the first
to demonstrate the real capabilities of artillery.
Mortars throwing bombs were first used at the siege of Lamotte in
1634. Hand grenades, shells, fire-balls, etc., came into more general
use as the German chemists made their new discoveries. Artillery
practice grew to be something of a science; experts took it up and
the troops were better instructed. Regimental artillery, that is, artillery
with the infantry, was attended by grenadiers detailed for the work.
There were special companies for serving the reserve guns.
The period following the Thirty Years’ War—the middle of the
seventeenth century—gave no great improvement to the art of war
but there were many marked advances in the matter of details of
construction. During the era of Gustavus it was Sweden that led in
making war more modern; during the era of Louis XIV it was France.
Artillery ceased to be a guild of cannoneers as it long had been
and became an inherent part of the army. More intelligence was
devoted to it and more money spent on this arm of the service; it
grew in strength and importance, and was markedly improved. But
while the artillery service ceased to be a mere trade, it did not put on
the dignity of a separate arm, nor was the artillery of any great utility
in the field until well along in the eighteenth century. Guns, however,
in imitation of the Swedes, were lightened, particularly so in France;
powder was gradually compounded on better recipes; gun-metal was
improved; paper and linen cartridges were introduced; gun carriages
were provided with an aiming wedge; and many new styles of guns
and mortars, and ammunition for them were invented.
Science lent its aid to practical men, and not only exhausted
chemical ingenuity in preparing powder and metal, but mathematical
formulas were made for the artilleryman, and value of ricochet firing
was discovered. Louis XIV founded several artillery schools, and
initiated the construction of many arsenals. Fontainebleau, the
French artillery school which trained many Americans during the
World War had its beginning in this period. Finally, the artillery was
organized on a battery and a regimental basis, and careful rules
were made for the tactics of the guns. These were served by
dismounted men and generally hauled by contract horses.
Although sensibly improved, the artillery was far from being
skillfully managed and was slow firing; it usually stood in small
bodies all along the line of battle. It was heavy and hard to handle
and haul, principally because the same guns were used for both
siege and field work, and was far from being, even relatively to the
other arms, the weapon which it is to-day.
In 1765 General Gribeauval of France introduced artillery
improvements, especially in the carriages, and formed a distinct
artillery service for the field which was lighter than the old service
and was drawn by teams which were harnessed double as they are
to-day.
Howitzers were introduced in France in 1749. The weapons were
given an early sort of perfection by the Dutch. The term “howitzer”
comes from the German “haubitz.” In 1808 the first shrapnel
appeared at Vimera. It was invented by an English colonel by the
name of Shrapnel. At the time it was known as case shot. The type
employed by Napoleon, had a fuze that could be used at two
different ranges. The French still have this type in their armament.
Field artillery now began to appear in the form which it was to
retain with but a few changes, until the era of the modern field
carriage. The cradle disappeared, muzzle-loading guns cast with
trunnions taking its place, and a stepped wedge resting on the trail
superseded the pin and arc. With the exception of the gun, most
parts of these carriages were of wood and were to remain so until
1870, when metal carriages came into general use. Muzzle loading
guns had supplanted breech-loaders because of the poor obturation
and the many accidents resulting from use of the latter type.
Although numerous experiments were made, breech-loading guns
did not come into vogue again until 1850, when the experiments of
Major Cavalli (1845), the Walnendorff gun (1846) and the Armstrong
gun (1854), produced satisfactory types.
Up to 1860 practically all guns were smooth bore. Even during the
Civil War the smooth bore was generally used, although the rifled
gun began to make an appearance and was used in small numbers
by both sides at the battle of Gettysburg. Some breech loaders
began to appear at the same time. Improvement in the ballistic
properties of the gun necessitated a corresponding improvement in
the sighting facilities. In 1880 rifled breech loading and built-up steel
cannon came into general use. Rifled guns shoot accurately and as
a result, improved methods in direct laying were devised.
The period between from 1880 to the present, has brought about
changes in gun construction which, possibly, have been equaled in
importance to artillery only by the present change which is taking
place in the means of artillery transportation and self-propelling
mounts. In this period in rapid succession came the modern
breechblock and with it the rapid firing gun. This brought about the
change to the present system of breaking the force of recoil of the
gun and restoring it to its firing position without disturbing the
position of the carriage. This added to the possibilities of rapid and
more accurate fire. Then came the invention and use in the field
artillery of smokeless powder. Previous to this time the great amount
of smoke produced by the black powder when the piece was fired
retarded the rapidity of fire because it enveloped the materiel in a
thick cloud of smoke which obscured the target and made it
impossible to fire again until the smoke had blown away. It made
concealed positions for the artillery almost impossible. The advent of
smokeless powder made firing more rapid and made possible the
selection of concealed positions. This in turn made indirect fire
feasible and necessitated the development of better sights. Indirect
fire increased the rapidity of fire and gave to the commanders of
firing units a greater control over their fire. With the use of recoil
mechanisms and shields for the guns, the cannoneers were
permitted to serve the piece continuously—a condition which was
impossible with the recoiling carriage. The shields made it almost
impossible to put the gun out of action unless some vital part of the
mechanism was destroyed.
The first of the modern carriages which were produced in the early
nineties should be classified as semi-rapid carriages, as the recoil
brakes were so abrupt that the carriage was not stable and jumped
considerably, gaining for the type the sobriquet of “grass-hopper
guns.”
In 1897 the immortal French “75” was born, the pioneer of all
modern quick-firing field guns, which still maintains its superiority in
many respects over later designs.
In 1902 our own 3-inch field gun was produced and still finds favor
among many of our field artillery officers, even over the French “75.”
The Deport carriage brought to this country from Italy, in 1912,
introduced to us the split trail, high angle of fire, wide traversing type
of field gun carriage. This carriage was extensively tested by the
Ordnance Department; by the Field Artillery Board at Fort Riley,
Kansas; and by the School of Fire for Field Artillery, at Fort Sill,
Oklahoma. The Field Artillery Board unqualifiedly approved of the
Deport carriage and recommended that it be adopted. The School of
Fire for Field Artillery also approved of this type.
In 1916 the United States produced a 75-mm field gun which
featured a split trail with an elevation of 57 degrees which permits its
use as an anti-aircraft weapon and a variable length of recoil which
prevents the breech from hitting the ground at the extreme
elevations. It has a traverse of 800 mils in comparison to the 106 of
the French 75 and the 142 and 140 of the British 75 and American
three-inch field gun.
The outbreak of the late war saw all modern armies largely
equipped with guns resembling the French “75” in a long-run recoil
mechanism, weight of projectile and weight of carriage, etc. The fact
that the largest number of horses which could best be handled to
maneuver the light guns—about 6—could not pull over a long period
a gun or caisson with its limber if the weight was more than about
4500 pounds, resulted in the practical standardization of light guns in
all armies. So in 1914 we see that time and development had given
light gun perfection and mastery of artillery technique to the French
while the Germans, probably, possessed the most efficient artillery
program. The German types of weapons were more varied and
perhaps better suited to the varying artillery needs in rendering that
assistance to the infantry for which the artillery exists.
 In our service during the World War, French 75s and the 155-mm
Howitzer were used as divisional artillery. Two regiments of the light
guns and one regiment of 155-Howitzers were assigned to each
infantry division. As the war progressed guns and howitzers ranging
from the 4.7” rifle, up to, and including 14 and even 16-inch naval
guns on railroad mounts, were used as Corps and Army artillery.
Thus artillery development has gone steadily forward. Every
military power has striven with the aid of its best engineers,
designers and manufacturers to get a stronger gun, either with or
without a heavier projectile, but in every case striving for greater
power. As a special development and a not too important one, due to
its lack of effectiveness in comparison to its cost, we find the now
famous long range gun of the Germans, successfully delivered a
projectile approximately 9 inches in diameter into Paris punctually
every twenty minutes from a point about 75 miles distant. The
Germans used three of these guns in shelling Paris. Their life was
probably limited to about 75 rounds due to the excessive demands
made upon the materiel.
The American Field Artillery Service now has before it four types
of field gun carriages, namely our 3” model of 1902; the French 75
M-1897; the British 18 pounder, M-1905 converted to a 75-mm
(known as the model of 1917); and our 75-mm model, 1916. There is
being produced (1919-20) an improved model of 1916 75-mm
carriage on which the St. Chamond pneumatic recuperator, adopted
jointly by the American and French governments, will be substituted
for the spring recuperators; and the French 75-mm gun will be
substituted for our shorter calibered type. From these types one
must be selected. An intelligent selection involves a consideration of
what may be expected in the future in order that it may best fit in with
the new types yet to be evolved.
For horsed artillery—and horse artillery will be with us for some
years to come—the limiting features of draft and man power will still
pertain.
For tractor-drawn mobile artillery, the limiting feature is the tractive
power of the tractor with relation to the weight of the gun and
carriage, the unit being physically limited in weight by the supporting-
power of the pontoon bridge which is about 10,000 pounds per
vehicle.
For Caterpillar Artillery.—By that is meant guns mounted on
caterpillar tractors—the limiting features are power and weight,
coupled with the weight limitations of the pontoon bridge. To
circumvent the question of weight, the load may be divided by
mounting the motor by an electric generator on one caterpillar and
the gun with an electric motor, on the other, a transmission cable
connecting the two vehicles.
In conclusion it might be said that one of the greatest changes
which has ever taken place in the development of field artillery is
now underway in the form of motorization. Prior to 1917 horse
traction had been the sole means of transporting mobile field artillery.
The limit of the capabilities of horse traction placed a weight limit
upon gun construction and to some extent upon artillery tactics. The
increase in the ratio of field artillery to infantry, the corresponding
demand for artillery types of horses and the decrease in the
availability of the latter as the war continued, combined with the
great improvements which were constantly being wrought in
mechanical transportation as the war lengthened, opened the way
for artillery motorization.
The French began by placing their 75s on trucks for rapid changes
of position. All the armies saw the possible advantages to be gained
from the use of trucks with artillery but none planned—nor have any
since put into practice—the extensive use of trucks, caterpillar
tractors and motor transportation for personnel, which the United
States planned on her entrance into the war. It was planned to equip
about one-third of the A. E. F. artillery regiments with complete motor
equipment. This plan did not entirely materialize but after the
armistice the 3rd Field Artillery Brigade of the 3rd Division was
completely motorized and its practice marches in Germany were
most successful and full of promise for the future. To date the
motorization of all our mobile Field Artillery, with the exception of
about fifty per cent of the light field guns, has been authorized.
 Motor traction gives a better performance than animal. While the
latter, especially with the light field guns, possesses great mobility, it
is not a sustained nor a persistent mobility; it is more easily
exhausted and requires longer to recuperate. These are points of
vital importance from a military viewpoint.
In 1920 a self-propelling caterpillar mounted with a 75-mm gun,
model 1916, was tested with a view to ascertaining the ability of the
motor to function in water, i. e. fording streams, etc. The caterpillar
successfully moved through ice water which completely submerged
the carburetor.
Passenger cars for the transportation of personnel, four wheel
drive trucks with caterpillar tractors for the transportation of the
materiel, and the development of self-propelling mounts for the 75
and 155 rifles are the latest and the most important developments in
field artillery materiel.
 CHAPTER III
ELEMENTS OF GUN CONSTRUCTION AND
DESIGN

“A gun is a machine by which the force of expanding gas is utilized

for the purpose of propelling a projectile in a definite direction.” It is
essentially a metal tube closed at one end, of sufficient strength to
resist the pressure of the gases caused by the combustion of the
powder charge in the confined space at the closed end of the tube
behind the projectile. The rapid combustion of the powder, which
produces a high temperature, gives rise to a pressure uniformly
exerted in all directions within the confined space. The energy
exerted is used in forcing the projectile from the tube.

TUBES
Due to the effort of the large amount of superheated gas
generated, which tends to expand in all directions, tremendous
rending stresses are set up in the tube. Formerly these stresses
were met by a sheer mass of metal, but, as the size of the projectiles
increased and the necessary pressure to give them muzzle velocity
increased, the size of the guns increased beyond the practical limits
of mobility. This was at first offset by forgings of refined alloyed
steels, but even these failed to keep pace with the increasing
pressure desired. The new condition was met by the introduction of
the “built-up” and the “wire-wrapped” guns. The modern built-up gun
is made by assembling one or more superimposed cylinders around
a central tube. The superimposed cylinders, whose inside
dimensions are slightly smaller than the outside dimensions of those
on which they are to be assembled, are expanded by heat
sufficiently to allow them to be assembled over the tube. The
subsequent contraction on cooling causes each of them to exert a
uniform pressure on the cylinder immediately underneath. This
method of assembling is called “shrinkage.” This gives a
compression to the inner tube and a slight tension to the outer one.
The compression is so much additional strength to the tube because
it must first be overcome before the powder gases can exert a
tension on the inner tube fibers. The exact amount of the
compression and tension for all parts of a gun at rest or resisting an
explosion is a matter of mathematical calculation. The built-up
construction has been used in practically all our present day types of
field artillery.

THE WIRE-WRAPPED GUN.

Wire-wrapped guns consist of:
(a) An inner steel tube which forms a support on which the wire is
wrapped and in which the rifling grooves are cut.
(b) Layers of wire wrapped upon the tube to increase its resistance
by the application of an exterior pressure as well as to add to the
strength of the structure by their own resistance to extension under
fire.
(c) One or more layers consisting of a steel jacket and hoops
placed over the wire with or without shrinkage. The jacket generally
furnishes longitudinal strength to the guns, and the breech block is
screwed into the jacket, or into a breech bushing, which is screwed
into the jacket.
The principal advantages of this type of gun over the built-up is
economy of manufacture and greater facilities for inspection of
materiel in the layers over the tube. The wire wrapping has itself a
large reserve of strength due to the high elastic limits that may be
given it. Two methods are used to wrap the wire: (a) at constant
tension (b) at varying tension so that when the gun is fired with the
prescribed pressure, all layers of wire shall be subjected to the same
tangential stress. The latter method is theoretically better, but
because of the ease of manufacture, together with the large factor of
safety possible, the wire is usually wrapped at a constant pressure.

THE BUILT-UP GUN.

All army guns except small howitzers or mortars are of the built-up
or wire-wrapped type. Built up guns of less than 5” caliber, or
howitzers up to 8” caliber consist of an inner tube and a jacket
shrunk onto this tube. The jacket covers the breech end of the gun
and extends forward to the center of gravity. Built-up guns of larger
caliber have one more layer of hoops in addition to the jacket, one
layer of hoops usually extending to the muzzle.
The bore of the tube forms the powder chamber, the seat for the
projectile and the rifled bore. Rifling consists of a number of helical
grooves cut in the surface of the bore. The soft metal of the rotating
band of the projectile is forced into these grooves causing the
projectile to take up a rotary motion as it passes through the bore.
This is necessary in order to keep the projectile stable in its flight.

TWIST.
By twist of rifling is meant the inclination of one of the grooves to
the element of the bore at any point. Rifling is of two kinds: (a)
Uniform twist, or that in which the twist is constant throughout the
bore, (b) Increasing twist or that in which the twist increases from the
breech towards the muzzle.
The twist of rifling is usually expressed in the number of calibers
length of bore in which it makes one complete turn. The twist actually
required at the muzzle to maintain the stability of the projectile varies
with the kind of projectile and the muzzle velocity. If a uniform twist
be used, the driving force on the rotating band will be at a maximum
when the pressure in the guns is at a maximum—or near the origin
of rifling (seat of the projectile). The increasing twist serves to reduce
the maximum driving force on the band thus lessening the danger of
stripping the band. This is its principal advantage over the uniform
twist, though it also reduces slightly the maximum pressure in the
gun. The principal disadvantage of the increasing twist is the
continued change in form of the grooves pressed in the rotating
band, as the projectile passes through the bore. This results in
increased friction and a higher value for the passive resistance than
with a uniform twist. (Note: greater ranges obtained by cutting
grooves in projectile, principal used on the long range gun by the
Germans.) If the twist increases from zero at the breech uniformly to
the muzzle, the rate of change in the tangent to the groove is
constant. A twist in this form offers less resistance than the uniform
twist to the initial rotation of the projectile. To still further diminish this
resistance a twist that is at first less rapid than the uniformly
increasing twist and later more rapid has been generally adopted for
rifled guns.
Formerly in our service the twist was uniform; one turn in 25
calibres for guns and one turn in 20 calibres for howitzers. All the
latest model army guns, however, have an increasing twist of one
turn in 50 calibres at the breech to one turn in 25 calibres at a point
from 2 to 4 calibres from the muzzle. In howitzers and mortars the
twist is sometimes one turn in 40 calibres at the breech to one turn in
20 calibres at a point several calibres from the muzzle. Some
mortars are rifled with a uniform twist and some guns have a rifling
which begins with a zero twist. (The 1905 3” gun, 0 to 1 in 25.)

OUTER CYLINDERS.
Outside of the tube is the jacket. It extends to the rear of the tube
a sufficient distance to allow of seating the breech block. In this
manner the longitudinal stress due to the pressure of the powder
gases on the face of the breech block is transmitted to the jacket
thus relieving the metal of the tube from this stress. In all built-up
guns there is some method devised for locking the tube to the jacket
so as to prevent relative movement of these parts.
Considering the gun alone the greatest range is obtained at an
angle of about 43 degrees from that gun which fires the heaviest
projectile with the greatest velocity. The caliber being limited to from
2.95 inch to 3.3 inch, the projectile is limited in weight to from 12 to
18 pounds. The weight of the gun is limited to between 700 and
1000 pounds and in length to between 27 and 36 calibers. The
longer the gun, the greater the weight and velocity from the same
charge of powder. A pressure of 33,000 pounds per square inch with
a corresponding velocity of 1700 f. s. has been found to be as high a
pressure and velocity as are desirable for a reasonable length of life
for a field gun, the average life of which is 10,000 accurate rounds.
Under the French school of artillery, which dominates our service
at present, our bore is 75-mm, the weight of our shell 12 pounds, our
shrapnel 16 pounds, the velocity for the one about 1,750 f. s. and for
the other about 1,680 f. s.

BREECHBLOCKS.
The breechblock appears in four distinct types. Our own service
has for years used the swinging interrupted screw breechblock which
in the 1905 model is the equal of any of that type in existence. The
swinging block has serious disadvantages for high angle fire in that it
requires an excessive amount of room to operate and is difficult to
load at high elevations.
The Italians have introduced a new breechblock in one of their
recent guns, consisting of a half cylinder with superimposed
spherical face on its cylindrical surface rotating vertically about a
horizontal axis perpendicular to the axis of the bore. The gun is
loaded through a groove in the breechblock when the latter is in its
horizontal position. The block, which is semi-automatic, is very
satisfactory. It is adapted to high angle fire.
The French in their “75” have used the rotating eccentric screw
type, which is rapid in movement and lends itself fairly well to high
angle fire. It is completely enclosed and of rugged construction.
The Germans have used the sliding wedge type of block, moving
in a horizontal direction, which does not lend itself to high angle fire.
 The United States in its recent field carriage adopted the sliding
wedge type in a vertical plane on account of its manifest superiority
in fire at high angles. This block is rather difficult to manufacture and
the type has a tendency to stick. The automatic closing necessitates
a strong closing spring which fatigues the block operator, No. 1 in the
gun squad. It is interesting to note that in a prospective new design
for the 1916 gun carriage the American Ordnance Department
adopted the French breechblock; and the St. Chamond Company,
designing for the American Expeditionary Forces, adopted the
American drop block.
Requirements for a breech mechanism:
The following may be said to be the principal requirements for a
successful breech mechanism.
1. Safety. To be safe: (a) the gas must be restrained from escaping
to the rear; this sealing or obturation must be automatic, greater
pressure insuring better obturation. (b) The breech of the gun must
not be weakened by the fitting of the breech mechanism. (c) The
parts must have ample strength to prevent any portion from being
blown to the rear. (d) The danger of premature discharge must be
minimized. (e) The breechblock must be securely locked to prevent
opening on firing.
2. Ease and Rapidity of Working. Otherwise, rapid and continuous
fire cannot be maintained. Hence this would include facility in loading
and certainty of extraction for rapid fire guns.
3. Not Easily Put Out of Order. In other words it must be able to
meet service conditions and hard usage. Parts should have a
reserve strength.
4. Ease of Repair. Parts most exposed to wear should be so
designed as to permit being replaced. This will also include
accessibility to parts, so that breakage of a part will not disable the
mechanism for a long time.
5. Interchangeability. Not only should individual parts be made
interchangeable by accurate workmanship, but the whole
mechanism should be capable of being mounted on similar guns.
This is to meet service conditions.

GUN CARRIAGES.
A modern gun carriage is expected to stand steady on firing, so
that in the first place it requires no running up, and in the second
place it maintains the direction of the gun so that only a slight
correction in elevation and direction is required after each round. The
carriage is maintained in position by the spade, which sinks into the
ground, and by the friction of the wheels upon the ground. If the
force of the recoiling gun were communicated directly to the
anchored carriage the effect would be to make it jump violently,
which would not only disturb the lay, but would prevent the
cannoneers from maintaining their position. The hydraulic recoil
brake is therefore interposed between gun and carriage. If the guns
were rigidly attached to the carriage the latter would be forced back
a short distance at each round, and the whole of the recoil energy
would have to be absorbed in that short motion. Instead of this the
gun alone is allowed to recoil several feet and although the recoil
energy is in this case greater than it would be if gun and carriage
recoiled together yet it is so gradually communicated to the carriage
that instead of a violent jerk we have a steady, uniform pull, the only
effect of which is to slightly compress the earth behind the spade. In
a well designed carriage the amount of this pull is always less than
that required to lift the wheels off the ground by rotating the carriage
about the spade.
The only motion of the carriage which takes place is that due to
the elastic bending and rebound of its parts under the cross strains
set up on discharge. These strains are inevitable since the direction
of recoil cannot be always exactly in the line of the resistance of the
earth behind the spade. This movement of the axis is known as jump
and must be determined by experiment for the individual piece in its
particular mounting.
The principal parts of the typical gun carriage are the cradle, a
device for mounting the cradle—called in the different models rocker,